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 | |||||||||
![]() Australasian RadiologyVolume 49 Issue 1, Pages 32 - 38 Published Online: 23 Feb 2005 2007 The Authors Journal compilation
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 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
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. |