4.7 Article

Pulmonary embolism detection:: Prospective evaluation of dual-section helical CT versus selective pulmonary arteriography in 157 patients

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 217, 期 2, 页码 447-455

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMER
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.217.2.r00nv01447

关键词

computed tomography (CT), comparative studies; computed tomography (CT), technology; digital subtraction angiography, comparative studies; embolism, pulmonary; pulmonary angiography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of dual-section helical computed tomography (CT) in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 204 consecutive patients with clinically suspected acute PE (mean age, 58 years +/- 14 [SD]), 158 were enrolled. All patients underwent dual-section helical CT (2.7-mm effective section thickness) and selective pulmonary arteriography within 12 hours of each other. Each image was analyzed independently by two observers, who determined image quality and presence of PE among arterial segments, including at the subsegmental level. The final diagnosis was made with consensus. RESULTS: Selective pulmonary arteriography was considered optimal in 147 (93%), suboptimal in 10(6%), and inconclusive in one (0.6%) of 158 patients. Dual-section helical CT findings were considered technically optimal in 140 (89%), suboptimal in 11 (7%), and inconclusive in six (4%). Selective pulmonary arteriography demonstrated PE in 62 patients. Four (6%) of 62 patients had isolated subsegmental PE. The sensitivity of dual-section helical CT was 90%, and the specificity was 94%. The positive and negative predictive values were 90% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Dual-section helical CT is an improvement in helical CT that offers a high sensitivity and specificity for the depiction of PE, including at the subsegmental level. Dual-section helical CT can replace pulmonary arteriography for the direct demonstration of PE in it majority of patients.

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

4.7
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