Safety of ventilation/perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for pulmonary embolism diagnosis
- 754 Downloads
The aim of this management outcome study was to assess the safety of ventilation/perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (V/Q SPECT) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) using for interpretation the criteria proposed in the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines for V/Q scintigraphy.
A total of 393 patients with clinically suspected PE referred to the Nuclear Medicine Department of Brest University Hospital from April 2011 to March 2013, with either a high clinical probability or a low or intermediate clinical probability but positive D-dimer, were retrospectively analysed. V/Q SPECT were interpreted by the attending nuclear medicine physician using a diagnostic cut-off of one segmental or two subsegmental mismatches. The final diagnostic conclusion was established by the physician responsible for patient care, based on clinical symptoms, laboratory test, V/Q SPECT and other imaging procedures performed. Patients in whom PE was deemed absent were not treated with anticoagulants and were followed up for 3 months.
Of the 393 patients, the prevalence of PE was 28 %. V/Q SPECT was positive for PE in 110 patients (28 %) and negative in 283 patients (72 %). Of the 110 patients with a positive V/Q SPECT, 78 (71 %) had at least one additional imaging test (computed tomography pulmonary angiography or ultrasound) and the diagnosis of PE was eventually excluded in one patient. Of the 283 patients with a negative V/Q SPECT, 74 (26 %) patients had another test. The diagnosis of PE was finally retained in one patient and excluded in 282 patients. The 3-month thromboembolic risk in the patients not treated with anticoagulants was 1/262: 0.38 % (95 % confidence interval 0.07–2.13).
A diagnostic management including V/Q SPECT interpreted with a diagnostic cut-off of “one segmental or two subsegmental mismatches” appears safe to exclude PE.
KeywordsV/Q SPECT Pulmonary embolism Criteria Outcome
We would like to thank Z. Alavi, MSc, INSERM CIC 1412, for proofreading this manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
- 8.Roach PJ, Schembri GP, Bailey DL. V/Q scanning using SPECT and SPECT/CT. J Nucl Med 2013;54:1588–96.Google Scholar
- 10.Le Roux PY, Robin P, Delluc A, Abgral R, Le Duc-Pennec A, Nowak E et al. V/Q SPECT interpretation for pulmonary embolism diagnosis: which criteria to use? J Nucl Med 2013;54:1077–81.Google Scholar
- 27.Kearon C, Akl EA, Comerota AJ, Prandoni P, Bounameaux H, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141(2 Suppl):e419S–94S.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.PIOPED Investigators. Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism. Results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). JAMA 1990;263(20):2753–9.Google Scholar