If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

< Previous Abstract  |  Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 285K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

Diagnostic Radiology
Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: Ventilation perfusion scintigraphy versus helical computed tomography pulmonary angiography
WBG Macdonald 1,3 ,AP Patrikeos 1,2 ,RI Thompson 2 ,BD Adler 4 and AA van der Schaaf 1
Departments of  1Nuclear Medicine and  2Radiology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, and Departments of  3Nuclear Medicine and  4Radiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Correspondence to  Dr William Macdonald, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Box X2213 GPO, Perth WA 6847, Australia. Email: william.macdonald@health.wa.gov.au

WBG Macdonald MB BS, MPH, FRACP; AP Patrikeos MB BS, FRANZCR; RI Thompson MB BS, FRANZCR; BD Adler MB BS, FRANZCR; AA van der Schaaf MB BS, B Med Sci, FRACP

Copyright 2005 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists
KEYWORDS
angiography • computed tomography scanners • lung • pulmonary embolism • scintigraphy • X-ray

Summary

AbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementReferences

The present study compared the accuracy of ventilation perfusion scintigraphy (VQS) and CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. This was a prospective observational study of 112 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) who could be studied with both investigations within 24 h. Results were compared to final diagnosis at completion of 6-month follow up, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in 27 referred patients (24%). The sensitivity and specificity of VQS and CTPA were similar to that reported from the literature. A normal VQ scan had the highest negative predictive value (100%), while a high-probability VQ scan had the highest positive predictive value (92%). There was no overall difference (area under the ROC curve (AUC)) between VQS (AUC (95% CI) = 0.82 (0.75,0.89)) and CTPA (AUC = 0.88 (0.81,0.94)) for the diagnosis of PE. Among patients with abnormal chest X-rays, CTPA (AUC 0.90 (0.83,0.97)) appeared somewhat better than VQS (AUC 0.78 (0.68,0.88)) but this difference did not reach statistical significance. In this instance, CTPA is at least as accurate as VQS and may provide an opportunity to make alternative diagnoses.


Submitted 24 November 2003; accepted 26 August 2004.

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1440-1673.2005.01390.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


Sign Up Now
Sign Up Now