Value of pulmonary perfusion tomography/ low dose CT fusion imaging in the diagnosis of acute pul?monary embolism
10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2018.10.001
- VernacularTitle:肺灌注SPECT显像/同机低剂量CT融合显像诊断急性肺栓塞的价值
- Author:
Congxia CHEN
1
;
Zhiming YAO
;
Yue GUO
;
Xu LI
;
Xiaomao XU
;
Xiuqin LIU
;
Bin XU
Author Information
1. 100730,北京医院核医学科、国家老年医学中心
- Keywords:
Pulmonary embolism;
Tomography;
emission-computed;
single-photon;
Tomography;
X-ray computed;
Technetium;
Technetium Tc 99m aggregated albumin
- From:
Chinese Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
2018;38(10):649-653
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the pulmonary perfusion tomography combined with low dose CT scan (Q SPECT/ CT) in detecting acute pulmonary embolism (PE) by compa-ring with pulmonary ventilation/ perfusion (V/ Q) SPECT imaging. Methods A total of 203 patients sus-pected with acute PE (88 males, 115 females, age range 19-94 years) from January 2013 to December 2015 were enrolled in this retrospective study. All patients underwent V/ Q SPECT and low dose CT scan. Final clinical diagnosis was regarded as the gold standard. The diagnostic consistency and diagnostic efficacy of Q SPECT/ CT were compared with those of V/ Q SPECT. χ2 test was used to compare the differences be-tween the two methods. Kappa analysis was used to analyze the agreement of them. Results The coinci-dence rate of Q SPECT/ CT and V/ Q SPECT was 94.09％(191/ 203), Kappa= 0.882, P<0.001. Among the 12 cases with inconsistent diagnosis, 9 were finally diagnosed as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of Q SPECT / CT in the diagnosis of PE were 95. 12％(78/ 82), 80.99％(98/ 121), 77.23％(78/ 101), 96.08％(98/ 102), 86. 70％ ( 176/ 203). The counterpart parameters of V/ Q SPECT were 95. 12％ ( 78/ 82), 90. 91％(110/ 121), 87.64％ (78/ 89), 96.49％ (110/ 114), 92.61％ (188/ 203). Compared with V/ Q SPECT, Q SPECT/ CT had the same sensitivity but lower specificity (χ2 = 4.928, P = 0.026). The positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of Q SPECT/ CT were lower than those of V/ Q SPECT, but there was no significant difference (χ2 values: 3.491, 0.000, 3.824, all P>0.05). Conclusion In the majority of patients with suspected acute PE, V/ Q SPECT scan can be replaced by Q SPECT/ CT, but it must be careful to select Q SPECT/ CT for patients with COPD history.
