The diagnostic accuracy of perfusion-only scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the era of COVID-19: A single-center study of 434 patients

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Annals of Thoracic Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/atm.atm_42_23
Turgut Bora Cengiz, Ahmed Abdelrahman, Scott A. Rohren, John Doucette, Munir Ghesani
{"title":"The diagnostic accuracy of perfusion-only scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the era of COVID-19: A single-center study of 434 patients","authors":"Turgut Bora Cengiz, Ahmed Abdelrahman, Scott A. Rohren, John Doucette, Munir Ghesani","doi":"10.4103/atm.atm_42_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding the diagnostic accuracy of perfusion (Q)-only studies in the absence of ventilation images. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Q-only imaging in the pandemic era. METHODS: Patients who underwent Q-only imaging for pulmonary embolism between March 2020 and February 2021 were analyzed. Patients who underwent lung quantification analysis were excluded. Q-only test results were reported as per modified PIOPED II criteria and single positron emission tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) imaging was performed as needed. Patients were considered concordant or discordant by correlating the Q-only results with CT angiogram (CTA) or clinical diagnosis made through chart review. The diagnostic accuracy was calculated after excluding intermediate probability and nondiagnostic studies. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four patients were identified. One hundred and twenty-eight patients (29.4%) underwent ultrasound Doppler, 37 patients (8.5%) underwent CTA, and 16 patients (3.6%) underwent both. After excluding patients with intermediate probability or nondiagnostic studies and who did not have follow-up (a total of 87 patients [20%]), 347 patients were enrolled in the final analysis. The combined planar and SPECT/CT sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% (72.2%–93.9% confidence interval [CI]) and 98.7% (96.9%–98.6% CI), respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the Q-only imaging was 89.1% (77.3%–95.1% CI) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.2% (96.4%–99% CI). The sensitivity with SPECT/CT reached 100% (CI: 71.5%–100%) with a specificity of 92.3% (CI: 64%–99.8%). The PPV was 85.7% (CI: 62.1%–95.6%) and the NPV was 100%. CONCLUSION: Q-only imaging provides clinically acceptable results. The sensitivity of the Q-only scan is increased when coupled with SPECT/CT.","PeriodicalId":50760,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Thoracic Medicine","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Thoracic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/atm.atm_42_23","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding the diagnostic accuracy of perfusion (Q)-only studies in the absence of ventilation images. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Q-only imaging in the pandemic era. METHODS: Patients who underwent Q-only imaging for pulmonary embolism between March 2020 and February 2021 were analyzed. Patients who underwent lung quantification analysis were excluded. Q-only test results were reported as per modified PIOPED II criteria and single positron emission tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) imaging was performed as needed. Patients were considered concordant or discordant by correlating the Q-only results with CT angiogram (CTA) or clinical diagnosis made through chart review. The diagnostic accuracy was calculated after excluding intermediate probability and nondiagnostic studies. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four patients were identified. One hundred and twenty-eight patients (29.4%) underwent ultrasound Doppler, 37 patients (8.5%) underwent CTA, and 16 patients (3.6%) underwent both. After excluding patients with intermediate probability or nondiagnostic studies and who did not have follow-up (a total of 87 patients [20%]), 347 patients were enrolled in the final analysis. The combined planar and SPECT/CT sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% (72.2%–93.9% confidence interval [CI]) and 98.7% (96.9%–98.6% CI), respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the Q-only imaging was 89.1% (77.3%–95.1% CI) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.2% (96.4%–99% CI). The sensitivity with SPECT/CT reached 100% (CI: 71.5%–100%) with a specificity of 92.3% (CI: 64%–99.8%). The PPV was 85.7% (CI: 62.1%–95.6%) and the NPV was 100%. CONCLUSION: Q-only imaging provides clinically acceptable results. The sensitivity of the Q-only scan is increased when coupled with SPECT/CT.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新冠肺炎时代仅灌注扫描诊断肺栓塞的准确性:434例患者的单中心研究
摘要:引言:在缺乏通气图像的情况下,关于灌注(Q)研究的诊断准确性,文献中缺乏数据。本研究旨在评估大流行时期仅q成像的诊断准确性。方法:分析2020年3月至2021年2月期间接受肺栓塞Q-only成像的患者。排除进行肺定量分析的患者。根据修改后的piped II标准报告Q-only测试结果,并根据需要进行单正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描(SPECT/CT)成像。通过将Q-only结果与CT血管造影(CTA)或通过图表复习进行临床诊断的相关性来判断患者是否一致。排除中间概率和非诊断性研究后计算诊断准确性。结果:共鉴定出434例患者。128例患者(29.4%)行超声多普勒检查,37例(8.5%)行CTA检查,16例(3.6%)两者均行。在排除中间概率或非诊断性研究和未随访的患者(共87例[20%])后,最终分析纳入347例患者。平面和SPECT/CT联合检测的敏感性和特异性分别为85.4%(72.2% ~ 93.9%可信区间[CI])和98.7% (96.9% ~ 98.6% CI)。纯q成像阳性预测值(PPV)为89.1% (77.3% ~ 95.1% CI),阴性预测值(NPV)为98.2% (96.4% ~ 99% CI)。SPECT/CT的敏感性达到100% (CI: 71.5% ~ 100%),特异性为92.3% (CI: 64% ~ 99.8%)。PPV为85.7% (CI: 62.1% ~ 95.6%), NPV为100%。结论:纯q成像可提供临床可接受的结果。当与SPECT/CT耦合时,仅q扫描的灵敏度增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Thoracic Medicine
Annals of Thoracic Medicine CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal will cover studies related to multidisciplinary specialties of chest medicine, such as adult and pediatrics pulmonology, thoracic surgery, critical care medicine, respiratory care, transplantation, sleep medicine, related basic medical sciences, and more. The journal also features basic science, special reports, case reports, board review , and more. Editorials and communications to the editor that explore controversial issues and encourage further discussion by physicians dealing with chest medicine.
期刊最新文献
Effect of surgery on survival of patients with small-cell lung cancer undiagnosed before resection. Investigating the dynamic relationship of sleep-disordered breathing, orthodontic treatment needs, and dental esthetics in the general population. Is chest tube omission safe for patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery? Sleep disorders among elderly in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study. To assess the differences between thymoma patients with/without myasthenia all of their characteristics must be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1