Can We Rely on Computed Tomographic Scanning to Diagnose Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Surgical Patients?
- 1 March 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Journal Of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care
- Vol. 56 (3), 518-526
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ta.0000114535.64175.c5
Abstract
Spiral computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is gaining an increasing role in pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis because it is more convenient and less invasive than conventional pulmonary angiography (PA). Encouraging reports on the reliability of CTPA for medical patients have prompted widespread use despite the fact that its value in critically ill surgical patients has been inadequately explored. Hemodynamic and respiratory issues of critical illness may interfere with CTPA's diagnostic accuracy. The objective of this study was to compare CTPA with PA for the diagnosis of PE in critically ill surgical patients. Over 30 months (August 1999-February 2002), 37 critically ill surgical patients (28 trauma and 9 non-trauma patients) wiith clinical suspicion of PE were enrolled prospectively. CTPA and PA were independently interpreted by four radiologists (two for each test) blinded to each other's interpretation. Clinical suspicion for PE was classified as high, intermediate,or low on the basis of predetermined criteria. PA was considered as the standard of reference for the diagnosis of PE. PE was found in 15 (40%) patients by: central PE in 8 and peripheral PE in 7. CTPA and PA findings were different in 11 patients (30%): CTPA was false-negative in 9 patients and false-positive in 2. Its sensitivity and specificity were PE 50% and 100%, respectively, for central PE; 28% and 93% for peripheral PE; and 40% and 91% for all PE. There were no differences in risk factors or clinical characteristics between patients with and without PE. The level of clinical suspicion was identical in the two groups. The independent reviewers disagreed on CTPA or PA interpretations in 11% and 16% of the readings, respectively. PA remains the "gold standard" for diagnosis of PE in critically ill surgical patients. CTPA should be explored further before being universally accepted. Clinical criteria are unreliable for detecting PE in this population and therefore a high index of suspicion should be maintained.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Pulmonary Embolism: What have We Learned Since Virchow?Chest, 2002
- Spiral Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Surgical PatientsArchives of Surgery, 2001
- Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism With Use of Computed Tomographic AngiographyMayo Clinic Proceedings, 2001
- The role of spiral volumetric computed tomography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.Archives of Internal Medicine, 2000
- Opinions Regarding the Diagnosis and Management of Venous Thromboembolic DiseaseChest, 1998
- Detection of pulmonary embolism in patients with unresolved clinical and scintigraphic diagnosis: helical CT versus angiography.American Journal of Roentgenology, 1995
- Pulmonary embolism: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced electron-beam CT and comparison with pulmonary angiography.Radiology, 1995
- Central pulmonary thromboembolism: diagnosis with spiral volumetric CT with the single-breath-hold technique--comparison with pulmonary angiography.Radiology, 1992
- Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Pulmonary EmbolismJAMA, 1992
- Comparison of clinical and postmortem diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.Journal of Clinical Pathology, 1989