Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with spiral CT as a second procedure following scintigraphy.

Department of Radiology, Leyenburg Ziekenhuis, Leyweg 275, 2545 CH The Hague, The Netherlands.
European Radiology (Impact Factor: 4.34). 08/2003; 13(7):1501-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1709-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Our objective was to evaluate, in a routine clinical setting, the role of spiral CT as a second procedure in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and abnormal perfusion scan. We prospectively studied the role of spiral CT in 279 patients suspected of PE. All patients started their diagnostic algorithm with chest radiographs and perfusion scintigraphy. Depending on the results of perfusion scintigraphy, patients proceeded to subsequent levels in the algorithm: stop if perfusion scintigraphy was normal; CT and pulmonary angiography if subsegmental perfusion defects were seen; ventilation scintigraphy followed by CT when segmental perfusion defects were seen; and pulmonary angiography in this last group when results of ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy and CT were incongruent. Reference diagnosis was based on normal perfusion scintigraphy, high probability perfusion/ventilation scintigraphy in combination with abnormal CT, or pulmonary angiography. If PE was present, the largest involved branch was noted on pulmonary angiography, or on spiral CT scan in case of a high-probability ventilation/perfusion scan and a positive CT scan. A distinction was made between embolism in a segmental branch or larger, or subsegmental embolism. Two hundred seventy-nine patients had abnormal scintigraphy. In 27 patients spiral CT and/or pulmonary angiography were non-diagnostic and these were excluded for image analysis. Using spiral CT we correctly identified 117 of 135 patients with PE, and 106 of 117 patients without PE. Sensitivity and specificity was therefore 87 and 91%, respectively. Prevalence of PE was 53%. Positive and negative predictive values were, respectively, 91 and 86%. In the high-probability group, sensitivity and specificity increased to 97 and 100%, respectively, with a prevalence of 90%. In the non-high probability-group sensitivity and specificity decreased to 61 and 89%, respectively, with a prevalence of 25%. In a routine clinical setting single-detector spiral CT technology has limited value as a second diagnostic test because of low added value in patients with a high-probability lung scan and low sensitivity in patients with non-high-probability lung scan result.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to evaluate if D-Dimer PLUS (Dade Behring, USA), a rapid fully automated assay, could be used as an initial screening test in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Samples from 274 consecutive symptomatic patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (n=229; 79% outpatients, 21% inpatients), deep venous thrombosis (n=37; 84% outpatients, 16% inpatients) or suspected for both complications (n=8) were tested with this D-dimer assay with a Sysmex CA-1500 Coagulation Analyzer. Clinical probability for pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep venous thrombosis (DVT) was staged according to a pretest risk score proposed by Wells. Final diagnosis of PE and/or DVT was established by spiral-computed tomography of the pulmonary arteries or compression ultrasonography, respectively. PE was diagnosed in 13.5% of the patients, whereas DVT was confirmed in 17.7% of the patients. The optimal cut-off value for exclusion of venous thromboembolism was 130 mug/l, and sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) were 95.0% (95% CI: 92.4-97.6), 30.4% (95% CI: 25.0-35.8) and 97.2% (95% CI: 95.2-99.2), respectively. In fact, two patient with PE were missed using D-Dimer PLUS; both cases were outpatients. In conclusion, this assay appears to be safe when implemented in an algorithm based on clinical assessment, D-dimer concentration, and radiological diagnostic techniques to stratify the risk for PE or DVT. However, higher sensitivities and negative predictive values were claimed in the scarce published reports for the D-Dimer PLUS assay than found in this study.
    Thrombosis Research 02/2005; 115(5):381-6. · 3.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of contrast-enhanced 3D perfusion MRI and MR angiography (MRA) of pulmonary embolism (PE) in pigs using a single injection of the blood pool contrast Gadomer. PE was induced in five domestic pigs by injection of autologous blood thrombi. Contrast-enhanced first-pass 3D perfusion MRI (TE/TR/FA: 1.0 ms/2.2 ms/40 degrees; voxel size: 1.3 x 2.5 x 4.0 mm3; TA: 1.8 s per data set) and high-resolution 3D MRA (TE/TR/FA: 1.4 ms/3.4 ms/40 degrees; voxel size: 0.8 x 1.0 x 1.6 mm3) was performed during and after a single injection of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight of Gadomer. Image data were compared to pre-embolism Gd-DTPA-enhanced MRI and post-embolism thin-section multislice CT (n = 2). SNR measurements were performed in the pulmonary arteries and lung. One animal died after induction of PE. In all other animals, perfusion MRI and MRA could be acquired after a single injection of Gadomer. At perfusion MRI, PE could be detected by typical wedge-shaped perfusion defects. While the visualization of central PE at MRA correlated well with the CT, peripheral PE were only visualized by CT. Gadomer achieved a higher peak SNR of the lungs compared to Gd-DTPA (21 +/- 8 vs. 13 +/- 3). Contrast-enhanced 3D perfusion MRI and MRA of PE can be combined using a single injection of the blood pool contrast agent Gadomer.
    European Radiology 08/2004; 14(7):1291-6. · 4.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Computed tomography (CT) has become a standard test for many cardiovascular conditions (eg, aortic dissection and pulmonary embolism), and it has great potential in assessing other common diseases, including coronary artery disease. We review the principles of CT and its uses in cardiovascular medicine.
    Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 03/2005; 72(2):127-38. · 3.40 Impact Factor