4.6 Article

Acute Pulmonary Embolism Severity Assessment Evaluated with Dual Energy CT Perfusion Compared to Conventional CT Angiographic Measurements

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030495

Keywords

pulmonary embolism; Dual Energy CT; lung perfusion; pulmonary perfusion; Dual Source CT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study investigated the use of DECT software technique to assess the severity of acute PE, finding that perfusion defect volume assessed by DECT may be a helpful tool in comparison to other measures such as obstruction score and RV/LV diameter ratio.
The purpose of the study was to investigate whether Dual Energy CT (DECT) can be used as a diagnostic tool to assess the severity of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) by correlating parenchymal perfusion defect volume, obstruction score and right ventricular-to-left ventricular (RV/LV) diameter ratio using CT angiography (CTA) and DECT perfusion imaging. A total of 43 patients who underwent CTA and DECT perfusion imaging with clinical suspicion of acute PE were retrospectively included in the study. In total, 25 of these patients had acute PE findings on CTA. DECT assessed perfusion defect volume (PDvol) were automatically and semiautomatically quantified. Overall, two CTA methods for risk assessment in patients with acute PE were assessed: the RV/LV diameter ratio and the Modified Miller obstruction score. Automatic PDvol had a weak correlation (r = 0.47, p = 0.02) and semiautomatic PDvol (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) had a moderate correlation to obstruction score in patients with confirmed acute PE, while only semiautomatic PDvol (r = 0.43, p = 0.03) had a weak correlation with the RV/LV diameter ratio. Our data indicate that PDvol assessed by DECT software technique may be a helpful tool to assess the severity of acute PE when compared to obstruction score and RV/LV diameter ratio.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available