4.8 Article

Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 354, 期 22, 页码 2317-U7

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa052367

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL63981, HL063932, HL63982, HL63942, HL63941, HL63899, HL63928, HL63940, HL67453, HL63931] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The accuracy of multidetector computed tomographic angiography (CTA) for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism has not been determined conclusively. Methods: The Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II trial was a prospective, multicenter investigation of the accuracy of multidetector CTA alone and combined with venous-phase imaging (CTA-CTV) for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism. We used a composite reference test to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Results: Among 824 patients with a reference diagnosis and a completed CT study, CTA was inconclusive in 51 because of poor image quality. Excluding such inconclusive studies, the sensitivity of CTA was 83 percent and the specificity was 96 percent. Positive predictive values were 96 percent with a concordantly high or low probability on clinical assessment, 92 percent with an intermediate probability on clinical assessment, and nondiagnostic if clinical probability was discordant. CTA-CTV was inconclusive in 87 of 824 patients because the image quality of either CTA or CTV was poor. The sensitivity of CTA-CTV for pulmonary embolism was 90 percent, and specificity was 95 percent. CTA-CTV was also nondiagnostic with a discordant clinical probability. Conclusions: In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, multidetector CTA-CTV has a higher diagnostic sensitivity than does CTA alone, with similar specificity. The predictive value of either CTA or CTA-CTV is high with a concordant clinical assessment, but additional testing is necessary when the clinical probability is inconsistent with the imaging results.

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

4.8
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