RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Prospective, Comparative Study of Planar and Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography Ventilation/Perfusion Imaging for Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JO J Nucl Med
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP jnumed.120.243188
DO 10.2967/jnumed.120.243188
A1 Wang, Lei
A1 Wang, Meng
A1 Yang, Tao
A1 Wu, Dayong
A1 Xiong, Changming
A1 Fang, Wei
YR 2020
UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/early/2020/03/19/jnumed.120.243188.abstract
AB Objectives: The study compared the diagnostic performance of Planar Ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) and V/Q Single-photon computed tomography (SPECT), and determined whether combining perfusion scanning with low-dose computed tomography (Q-LDCT) may be equally effective in a prospective study of patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) patients. Background: V/Q scanning is recommended for excluding CTEPH during the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). However, Planar V/Q and V/Q SPECT techniques have yet to be compared in patients with CTEPH. Methods: Patients with suspected PH were eligible for the study. PH attributable to left heart disease or lung disease was excluded, and patients whose PH was confirmed by right heart catheterization and who completed Planar V/Q, V/Q-SPECT, Q-LDCT, and pulmonary angiography were included. V/Q images were interpreted and patients were diagnosed as instructed by the 2009 EANM guidelines, and pulmonary angiography analyses were used as a reference standard. Results: A total of 208 patients completed the study, including 69 with CTEPH confirmed by pulmonary angiography. Planar V/Q, V/Q-SPECT, and Q-LDCT were all highly effective for diagnosing CTEPH, with no significant differences in sensitivity or specificity observed among the three techniques (Planar V/Q [sensitivity/specificity]: 94.20%/92.81%; V/Q-SPECT: 97.10%/91.37%, Q-LCDT: 95.65%/90.65%). However, V/Q-SPECT was significantly more sensitive (V/Q-SPECT: 79.21%; Planar V/Q: 75.84%, P = 0.012; Q-LDCT: 74.91%, p<0.001), and Planar V/Q was significantly more specific (Planar V/Q: 54.14%; V/Q-SPECT 46.05%, p<0.001; Q-LDCT: 46.05%, P = 0.001) than the other two techniques for identifying perfusion defects in individual lung segments. Conclusion: Both Planar V/Q and V/Q-SPECT were highly effective for diagnosing CTEPH, and Q-LDCT may be a reliable alternative method for patients who are unsuitable for ventilation imaging.