Turgut Bora Cengiz, Ahmed Abdelrahman, Scott A. Rohren, John Doucette, Munir Ghesani
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
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
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.
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.