Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Sensitivity and Specificity of Ventilation-Perfusion Scintigraphy in PIOPED II Study
- 1 March 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) in Radiology
- Vol. 246 (3), 941-946
- https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2463070270
Abstract
To use Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED) II data to retrospectively determine sensitivity and specificity of ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphic studies categorized as pulmonary embolism (PE) present or PE absent and the proportion of patients for whom these categories applied. The PIOPED II study had institutional review board approval at all participating centers. Patient informed consent was obtained; the study was HIPAA compliant. Approval and consent included those for future retrospective research. Patients in the PIOPED II database of clinical and imaging results were included if they had diagnosis at computed tomographic (CT) angiography, Wells score, and diagnosis at V/Q scanning. V/Q scan central readings were recategorized as PE present (PIOPED II reading = high probability of PE), PE absent (PIOPED II reading = very low probability of PE or normal), or nondiagnostic (PIOPED II reading = low or intermediate probability of PE). A composite reference standard was used: the PIOPED II digital subtraction angiographic (DSA) result, or if there was no definitive DSA result, CT angiographic results that were concordant with the Wells score (ie, positive CT angiographic result and Wells score > 2 or negative CT angiographic result and Wells score < 6). Sensitivity and specificity of recategorized central readings were computed. With the exclusion of patients with intermediate or low probability, the sensitivity of a high probability (PE present) scan finding was 77.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69.7%, 85.0%), while the specificity of very low probability or normal (PE absent) scan finding was 97.7% (95% CI: 96.4%, 98.9%). The percentage of patients with a PE present or PE absent scan finding was 73.5% (95% CI: 70.7%, 76.4%). In a population similar to that in PIOPED II, results of V/Q scintigraphy can be diagnostically definitive in a majority of patients; thus, it can be considered an appropriate pulmonary imaging procedure in patients for whom CT angiography may be disadvantageous.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Diagnostic Pathways in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Recommendations of The PIOPED II InvestigatorsAmerican Journal Of Medicine, 2006
- Multidetector Computed Tomography for Acute Pulmonary EmbolismNew England Journal of Medicine, 2006
- Trends in the use of diagnostic imaging in patients hospitalized with acute pulmonary embolismThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2004
- Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD InitiativeRadiology, 2003
- Excluding Pulmonary Embolism at the Bedside without Diagnostic Imaging: Management of Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Presenting to the Emergency Department by Using a Simple Clinical Model and d-dimerAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001
- Review of Criteria Appropriate for a Very Low Probability of Pulmonary Embolism on Ventilation-Perfusion Lung Scans: A Position PaperRadioGraphics, 2000
- Value of perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: results of the Prospective Investigative Study of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PISA-PED).American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 1996
- Evaluation of revised criteria for ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.Radiology, 1994
- Mismatched Vascular DefectsChest, 1993
- Value of the Ventilation/Perfusion Scan in Acute Pulmonary EmbolismJAMA, 1990