Pulmonary perfusion defect index, pulmonary artery obstruction index and right heart function parameters for evaluating the severity of pulmonary embolism
10.3760/cma.j.cn341190-20210828-01003
- VernacularTitle:肺灌注缺损指数和栓塞指数及右心功能参数对肺栓塞严重程度评价的研究
- Author:
Wangwei ZHU
1
;
Peiyun ZHU
;
Xu LI
;
Yunchong HAN
;
Hu LIU
;
Hongwei ZHAO
Author Information
1. 嘉兴市第二医院放射科，嘉兴 314000
- Keywords:
Pulse embolism index;
Lung perfusion defect index;
Right ventricular short axis maximum diameter;
Left ventricular short axis maximum diameter ratio;
Righ
- From:
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
2022;29(10):1501-1505
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the value of pulmonary perfusion defect index (PPDI), pulmonary artery obstruction index (PAOI) and right heart function parameters in the evaluation of severity of pulmonary embolism.Methods:The clinical data of 108 patients with pulmonary embolism who received treatment in The Second Hospital of Jiaxing from January 2019 to June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into high-risk ( n = 25), moderate-risk ( n = 32), and low-risk ( n = 51) groups according to the severity of pulmonary embolism. PAOI, PPDI, right ventricular short axis maximum diameter (RV), left ventricular short axis maximum diameter (LV), ratio of right/left right ventricular short axis maximum diameter (RV/LV) were determined in each group. PPDI, PAOI and right ventricular function parameters were correlated with the severity of pulmonary embolism. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, specificity and severity of PPDI, PAOI, RV, LV, RV/LV used alone and in combination to predict the severity of pulmonary embolism were analyzed. Results:PPDI, PAOI, RV, and RV/LV in the high-risk group were (32.52 ± 10.85)%, (45.01 ± 15.02)%, (50.32 ± 12.32) mm, (1.42 ± 0.45), respectively, which were significantly lower than (5.32 ± 1.85)%, (12.52 ± 3.25)%, (37.25 ± 8.52) mm, (0.96 ± 0.21) in the low-risk group, and LV was significantly lower in the high-risk group than that in the low-risk group [(35.14 ± 10.52) mm vs. (44.02 ± 15.21) mm, t = 13.95, 11.91, 2.62, 6.09, 5.44, all P < 0.05]. PPDI, PAOI, RV, and RV/LV in the moderate-risk group were (18.62 ± 6.02)%, (28.65 ± 8.65)%, (45.85 ± 10.02) mm, and (1.20 ± 0.32), respectively, which were significantly higher than those in the low-risk group ( t = 14.75, 12.06, 4.18, 4.13, all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in LV between moderate-risk and low-risk groups ( t = 1.51, P > 0.05). Spearman correlation analysis showed that PPDI, PAOI, RV, RV/LV were positively correlated with the severity of pulmonary embolism ( r = 0.87, 0.84, 0.45, 0.41, all P < 0.001). LV was negatively correlated with the severity of pulmonary embolism ( r = -0.27, P < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) showed that the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of PPDI, PAOI, RV, LV, RV/LV used alone or in combination to predict the severity of pulmonary embolism were 0.941, 0.911, 0.721, 0.693, 0.726, and 0.951, respectively (all P < 0.001). Conclusion:PPDI, PAOI and right heart function parameters can be used as effective indexes to dynamically monitor the severity of pulmonary embolism.
