Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applying Wells score to inconclusive perfusion only modified PIOPED II (Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II) readings in order to optimize the lung scintigraphy diagnostic yield in acute pulmonary embolism detection

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

When using perfusion only modified PIOPED II criteria for PE detection, generated non-diagnostic scans are found to be the main diagnostic restriction. The objective of current study is to identify the role of Wells criteria added to inconclusive readings with the intent of enhancing the lung scintigraphy diagnostic yield.

Methods

CTPA was performed in 34 suspected PE patients with inconclusive lung scintigraphy. They also were evaluated by Wells score and classified as low, intermediate and high probability. Overall prevalence and the rate of PE for each probability were calculated. Furthermore, NPV for scores < 2 and PPV for scores > 6 were computed.

Results

Having a mean age of 59.75 ± 17.38 years, 7 (20.6%), 23 (67.6%) and 4 (11.8%) of cases had total criteria point count < 2, 2–6 and > 6, respectively. Using CTPA, 5 patients (14.7%) were diagnosed with PE. None of the patients with scores < 2 had PE with an associated NVP of 100%. Patients with scores 2–6 had a PE rate of 4.3% and 100% of patients with scores > 6 were diagnosed with PE, implying that the PPV of scores > 6 was 100%.

Conclusion

Adding Wells score to non-diagnostic scans allowed identification of PE to be done reliably, and provided further insight into how lung scintigraphy in conjunction with clinical assessment is a practical strategy not only for the patients unfit for performing CTPA but also in all the patients referred for PE evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dalen JE. Pulmonary embolism: what have we learned since Virchow? Natural history, pathophysiology, and diagnosis. Chest. 2002;122(4):1440–566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wells PS, Ginsberg JS, Anderson DR, Kearon C, Gent M, Turpie AG, et al. Use of a clinical model for safe management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129(12):997–1005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Escalon JG, Green DB, Bang TJ, Vargas D. Imaging pulmonary embolic disease. Curr Pulmonol Rep. 2019;8(3):104–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Konstantinides SV, Torbicki A, Agnelli G, Danchin N, Fitzmaurice D, Galiè N, et al. 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(43):3033–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Albrecht MH, Bickford MW, Nance JW Jr, Zhang L, De Cecco CN, Wichmann JL, et al. State-of-the-art pulmonary CT angiography for acute pulmonary embolism. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):495–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mamlouk MD, vanSonnenberg E, Gosalia R, Drachman D, Gridley D, Zamora JG, et al. Pulmonary embolism at CT angiography: implications for appropriateness, cost, and radiation exposure in 2003 patients. Radiology. 2010;256(2):625–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Da Silva R, Shah M, Freeman LM. Ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) lung scintigraphy: a long journey to a renewed position of prominence in diagnosing pulmonary embolism. Clin Transl Imaging. 2014;2(5):369–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Poulose KP, Reba RC, Gilday DL, Deland FH, Wagner HN. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. A correlative study of the clinical, scan, and angiographic findings. Br Med J. 1970;3(5714):67–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Parker JA, Coleman RE, Grady E, Royal HD, Siegel BA, Stabin MG, et al. SNM practice guideline for lung scintigraphy 40. J Nucl Med Technol. 2012;40(1):57–655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freitas JE, Sarosi MG, Nagle CC, Yeomans ME, Freitas AE, Juni JE. Modified PIOPED criteria used in clinical practice. J Nucl Med. 1995;36(9):1573–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stein PD, Woodard PK, Weg JG, Wakefield TW, Tapson VF, Sostman HD, et al. Diagnostic pathways in acute pulmonary embolism: recommendations of the PIOPED II investigators. Am J Med. 2006;119(12):1048–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sostman HD, Miniati M, Gottschalk A, Matta F, Stein PD, Pistolesi M. Sensitivity and specificity of perfusion scintigraphy combined with chest radiography for acute pulmonary embolism in PIOPED II. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(11):1741–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yap KS, Kalff V, Turlakow A, Kelly MJ. A prospective reassessment of the utility of the Wells score in identifying pulmonary embolism. Med J Aust. 2007;187(6):333–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sherk WM, Stojanovska J. Role of clinical decision tools in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):W60–W70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, Ginsberg JS, Kearon C, Gent M, et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost. 2000;83(3):416–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Parker MS, Hui FK, Camacho MA, Chung JK, Broga DW, Sethi NN. Female breast radiation exposure during CT pulmonary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(5):1228–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Niemann T, Nicolas G, Roser HW, Müller-Brand J, Bongartz G. Imaging for suspected pulmonary embolism in pregnancy-what about the fetal dose? A comprehensive review of the literature. Insights Imaging. 2010;1(5–6):361–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Harris BS, Bishop KC, Kuller JA. Radiologic aspects of the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;61(2):219–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Easther S, Langdana F, Beasley R, Maharaj D, Entwisle J, Abels P. The diagnostic role of ventilation/perfusion scans versus computed tomography pulmonary angiography in obstetric patients investigated for pulmonary embolism at Wellington Hospital from 2010 to 2012. N Z Med J. 2016;129(1433):62–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cronin P, Dwamena BA. A clinically meaningful interpretation of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED) scintigraphic data. Acad Radiol. 2017;24(5):550–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Waxman AD, Bajc M, Brown M, Fahey FH, Freeman LM, Haramati LB, et al. Appropriate use criteria for ventilation-perfusion imaging in pulmonary embolism: summary and excerpts. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(5):13–5.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Malek MM, Adimi P, Seyedi SR, Sharif-Kashani B. Assessment of wells criteria in patients with pulmonary embolism. Tanaffos. 2008;7(2):50–3.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gruettner J, Walter T, Lang S, Meyer M, Apfaltrer P, Henzler T, et al. Importance of wells score and Geneva score for the evaluation of patients suspected of pulmonary embolism. Vivo. 2015;29(2):269–72.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Slattengren AH, Prasad S, Bury C, Dickman M, Bennett N, Smith A, et al. PURL: a better approach to the diagnosis of PE. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(5):286–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Turan O, Turgut D, Gunay T, Yilmaz E, Turan A, Akkoclu A. The contribution of clinical assessments to the diagnostic algorithm of pulmonary embolism. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2017;26(2):303–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wolf SJ, McCubbin TR, Feldhaus KM, Faragher JP, Adcock DM. Prospective validation of wells criteria the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;44(5):503–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Afshin Rezapour for careful editing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Farshchian Cardiovascular Subspecialty Medical Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

    Seyed Kamaledin Hadei & Mehdi Ramezani

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Clinical Development Research Unit of Farshchian Heart Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

    Maryam Alvandi & Zahra Shaghaghi

  3. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Hazrat-E-Rasoul General Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Oldooz Aloosh

  4. School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

    Abbas Moradi

Authors
  1. Seyed Kamaledin Hadei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maryam Alvandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehdi Ramezani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oldooz Aloosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zahra Shaghaghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abbas Moradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam Alvandi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hadei, S.K., Alvandi, M., Ramezani, M. et al. Applying Wells score to inconclusive perfusion only modified PIOPED II (Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II) readings in order to optimize the lung scintigraphy diagnostic yield in acute pulmonary embolism detection. Ann Nucl Med 34, 521–526 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-020-01478-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-020-01478-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation