4.6 Article

Lung Perfusion with Dual-energy Multidetector-row CT (MDCT): Feasibility for the Evaluation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism in 117 Consecutive Patients

期刊

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 1494-1504

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.05.018

关键词

Pulmonary arteries; acute pulmonary embolism; lung perfusion; dual-source computed tomography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale and Objectives. To investigate the accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography in the depiction of perfusion defects in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Materials and Methods. One hundred seventeen consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of acute PE underwent dual-energy multidetector computed tomographic (CT) angiography of the chest with a standard injection protocol. Two radiologists evaluated, by consensus, the presence of endoluminal clots on (1) transverse diagnostic'' scans (contiguous 1-mm-thick averaged images from tubes A and B) and (2) lung perfusion scans. Results. Seventeen patients showed CT features of acute PE, with the depiction of 75 clots within the lobar (n = 15), segmental (n = 43) and subsegmental (n = 17) pulmonary arteries. A total of 17 clots were identified as complete filling defects (ie, obstructive clots), located within segmental (12 of 17) and subsegmental (5 of 17) arteries. Fourteen of the 17 obstructive clots were seen with the concurrent presence of corresponding perfusion defects, whereas cardiac motion and/or contrast-induced artifacts precluded the confident recognition of perfusion abnormalities in the remaining two segments and one subsegment. Four subsegmental perfusion defects were depicted without the visualization of endoluminal thrombi within the corresponding arteries. Perfusion defects were identified beyond live nonobstructive clots. Conclusion. Simultaneous information on the presence of endoluminal thrombus and lung perfusion impairment can be obtained with dual-energy computed tomography.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据