Université Européenne de Bretagne, Brest, France.
J Nucl Med. 2013 Jul;54(7):1077-81. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.113639. Epub 2013 May 1.
Ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) SPECT has been reported to improve the diagnostic performance of V/Q imaging for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). However, only sparse data based on an objective reference test are available, and the criteria used for interpretation have varied widely. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the performance of V/Q SPECT using various criteria for interpretation, in comparison with a validated independent diagnostic strategy.
The SPECT study included patients for whom V/Q SPECT data were compared with the results of an independent and validated diagnostic algorithm for PE. V/Q SPECT scans were performed after intravenous injection of (99m)Tc-macroaggregated albumin and simultaneous ventilation with (81m)Kr gas. Interpretation was performed independently by 2 nuclear medicine physicians who were not aware of the clinical history, diagnostic strategy conclusion, or patient's outcome. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were evaluated for various combinations of mismatched defect numbers and sizes (segmental or subsegmental). Generation of receiver-operating-characteristic curves was based on the number of mismatch defects and the number of subsegmental mismatch defects or equivalent.
Of the 249 patients who were analyzed, the diagnosis of PE was confirmed in 49 and ruled out in 200 according to the previously validated independent strategy. Of all the tested criteria, the best performance was achieved using a diagnostic cutoff of at least 1 segmental or 2 subsegmental mismatches, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-1) and 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.95), respectively. With a negative V/Q SPECT result, the posttest probability of PE was 0.010, 0.037, and 0.119 for a low, intermediate, and high clinical probability. With a positive V/Q SPECT result, the posttest probability of PE was 0.531, 0.814, and 0.939 for a low, intermediate, and high probability.
For V/Q SPECT interpretation, a diagnostic cutoff of 1 segmental or 2 subsegmental mismatches seems best for confirming or excluding acute PE.
评估 V/Q SPECT 采用不同解释标准的性能,并与经过验证的独立诊断策略进行比较。
SPECT 研究纳入了 V/Q SPECT 数据与独立、经过验证的 PE 诊断算法结果进行比较的患者。静脉注射(99m)Tc-聚合白蛋白后进行 SPECT 扫描,并同时进行(81m)Kr 气体通气。2 位核医学医师独立进行解释,他们不知道临床病史、诊断策略结论或患者的结果。评估了各种不匹配缺陷数量和大小(节段性或亚节段性)组合的敏感性、特异性和似然比。基于不匹配缺陷数量和亚节段不匹配缺陷数量或等效数量生成了受试者工作特征曲线。
在分析的 249 例患者中,根据先前经过验证的独立策略,49 例被确诊为 PE,200 例被排除。在所有测试的标准中,使用至少 1 个节段性或 2 个亚节段性不匹配的诊断截止值可获得最佳性能,敏感性和特异性分别为 0.92(95%置信区间,0.84-1)和 0.91(95%置信区间,0.87-0.95)。V/Q SPECT 结果阴性时,PE 的后验概率分别为低、中和高临床概率时的 0.010、0.037 和 0.119。V/Q SPECT 结果阳性时,PE 的后验概率分别为低、中和高概率时的 0.531、0.814 和 0.939。
对于 V/Q SPECT 解释,1 个节段性或 2 个亚节段性不匹配的诊断截止值似乎最适合用于确诊或排除急性 PE。