Diagnostic Performance of Perfusion-Only SPECT/CT for Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension in Comparison With Ventilation-Perfusion Planar, SPECT, and SPECT/CT Imaging.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of perfusion-only SPECT/CT (Q SPECT/CT) in comparison with that of ventilation/perfusion planar scintigraphy (V/Q planar), perfusion SPECT with ventilation scan (V/Q SPECT), and perfusion SPECT/CT with ventilation scan (V/Q SPECT/CT) in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with pulmonary hypertension who underwent ventilation-perfusion planar and SPECT/CT were retrospectively recruited. Two nuclear medicine physicians interpreted V/Q planar, V/Q SPECT, V/Q SPECT/CT, and Q SPECT/CT according to the European Association of Nuclear Medicine criteria. The diagnostic accuracy of these modalities for CTEPH was compared using a composite reference standard of pulmonary angiography, imaging test, cardiorespiratory assessment, and follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients were enrolled, including 85 with CTEPH. The sensitivity of Q SPECT/CT was 98.8%, which similar to that of V/Q planar (97.6%), V/Q SPECT (96.5%), or V/Q SPECT/CT (100.0%). In contrast, Q SPECT/CT exhibited significantly lower specificity (73.8%) compared with V/Q planar (86.9%, P = 0.001), V/Q SPECT (87.9%, P < 0.001), and V/Q SPECT/CT (88.8%, P < 0.001). The significantly lower specificity of Q SPECT/CT, compared with the 3 others, was observed in the subgroup aged ≥50 years ( P < 0.001 for all), but not in those <50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Q SPECT/CT exhibited lower specificity compared with V/Q planar, V/Q SPECT, and V/Q SPECT/CT in diagnosing CTEPH. It might underscore the essential role of a ventilation scan in patients with PH, even with the introduction of SPECT/CT.