Miniati M, Pistolesi M, Marini C, Di Ricco G, Formichi B, Prediletto R, Allescia G, Tonelli L, Sostman H D, Giuntini C
Istituto di Fisiologia Clinica del Consiglio Nazionale delle Richere, University of Pisa, Italy.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Nov;154(5):1387-93. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.154.5.8912753.
To assess the value of perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, we prospectively evaluated 890 consecutive patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Prior to lung scanning, each patient was assigned a clinical probability of pulmonary embolism (very likely, possible, unlikely). Perfusion scans were independently classified as follows: (1) normal, (2) near-normal, (3) abnormal compatible with pulmonary embolism (PE+: single or multiple wedge-shaped perfusion defects), or (4) abnormal not compatible with pulmonary embolism (PE-: perfusion defects other than wedge-shaped). The study design required pulmonary angiography and clinical and scintigraphic follow-up in all patients with abnormal scans. Of 890 scans, 220 were classified as normal/or near-normal and 670 as abnormal. A definitive diagnosis was established in 563 (84%) patients with abnormal scans. The overall prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 39%. Most patients with angiographically proven pulmonary embolism had PE+ scans (sensitivity: 92%). Conversely, most patients without emboli on angiography had PE- scans (specificity: 87%). A PE+ scan associated with a very likely or possible clinical presentation of pulmonary embolism had positive predictive values of 99 and 92%, respectively. A PE- scan paired with an unlikely clinical presentation had a negative predictive value of 97%. Clinical assessment combined with perfusion-scan evaluation established or excluded pulmonary embolism in the majority of patients with abnormal scans. Our data indicate that accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is possible by perfusion scanning alone, without ventilation imaging. Combining perfusion scanning with clinical assessment helps to restrict the need for angiography to a minority of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.
为评估灌注肺扫描在诊断肺栓塞中的价值,我们对连续890例疑似肺栓塞患者进行了前瞻性评估。在进行肺扫描之前,为每位患者确定肺栓塞的临床可能性(很可能、有可能、不太可能)。灌注扫描被独立分类如下:(1)正常,(2)接近正常,(3)与肺栓塞相符的异常(PE +:单个或多个楔形灌注缺损),或(4)与肺栓塞不相符的异常(PE -:非楔形的灌注缺损)。研究设计要求对所有扫描异常的患者进行肺血管造影以及临床和闪烁扫描随访。在890次扫描中,220次被分类为正常/或接近正常,670次为异常。563例(84%)扫描异常的患者确诊。肺栓塞的总体患病率为39%。大多数经血管造影证实有肺栓塞的患者灌注扫描为PE +(敏感性:92%)。相反,大多数血管造影无栓子的患者灌注扫描为PE -(特异性:87%)。与肺栓塞很可能或有可能的临床表现相关的PE +扫描的阳性预测值分别为99%和92%。与不太可能的临床表现配对的PE -扫描的阴性预测值为97%。临床评估与灌注扫描评估相结合,在大多数扫描异常的患者中确定或排除了肺栓塞。我们的数据表明,仅通过灌注扫描而无需通气成像即可准确诊断肺栓塞。将灌注扫描与临床评估相结合有助于将血管造影的需求限制在少数疑似肺栓塞患者中。