STUDY OBJECTIVE: To address the question whether ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy (SCINT) or helical computed tomography (CT) should be the first hand method for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). SETTING: Departments of radiology, nuclear medicine and internal medicine of a large university hospital. PATIENTS: During 3 years all 128 patients examined for PE with both methods were analysed. The strategy of interpretation behind original clinical reports, i.e. clinical CT and clinical SCINT, was based upon basic criteria for PE, ancillary findings and information from the referring doctor and from previous examinations. Reviewed SCINT and CT reports were obtained from experts in each field blinded to clinical and laboratory data. The findings with respect to PE were classified as no PE, PE or non-diagnostic. Other pathology than PE was described. A final diagnosis serving as reference was based upon CT, SCINT and other information including clinical follow for 6-24 months. METHODS: Planar SCINT was made with ventilation always preceding perfusion. CT was made with contrast injection using 3 mm collimation and table feed of 3 mm s-1. RESULTS: PE was diagnosed in 32 patients. For clinical and reviewed SCINT sensitivity was 91 and 97%, specificity 96 and 100% and rate of non-diagnostic findings 10 and 9%, respectively. For clinical and reviewed CT sensitivity was 81 and 78%, specificity 99 and 100% and non-diagnostic findings was observed in 8 and 1%, respectively. In patients with PE, concordant positive results were obtained with both modalities in 23 of 32 patients (72%). CONCLUSION: SCINT remains the first hand method because its high sensitivity, general feasibility, low radiation burden and low rate of non-diagnostic findings in our setting. CT is indispensable when SCINT is not available or its result non-diagnostic.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To address the question whether ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy (SCINT) or helical computed tomography (CT) should be the first hand method for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). SETTING: Departments of radiology, nuclear medicine and internal medicine of a large university hospital. PATIENTS: During 3 years all 128 patients examined for PE with both methods were analysed. The strategy of interpretation behind original clinical reports, i.e. clinical CT and clinical SCINT, was based upon basic criteria for PE, ancillary findings and information from the referring doctor and from previous examinations. Reviewed SCINT and CT reports were obtained from experts in each field blinded to clinical and laboratory data. The findings with respect to PE were classified as no PE, PE or non-diagnostic. Other pathology than PE was described. A final diagnosis serving as reference was based upon CT, SCINT and other information including clinical follow for 6-24 months. METHODS: Planar SCINT was made with ventilation always preceding perfusion. CT was made with contrast injection using 3 mm collimation and table feed of 3 mm s-1. RESULTS: PE was diagnosed in 32 patients. For clinical and reviewed SCINT sensitivity was 91 and 97%, specificity 96 and 100% and rate of non-diagnostic findings 10 and 9%, respectively. For clinical and reviewed CT sensitivity was 81 and 78%, specificity 99 and 100% and non-diagnostic findings was observed in 8 and 1%, respectively. In patients with PE, concordant positive results were obtained with both modalities in 23 of 32 patients (72%). CONCLUSION: SCINT remains the first hand method because its high sensitivity, general feasibility, low radiation burden and low rate of non-diagnostic findings in our setting. CT is indispensable when SCINT is not available or its result non-diagnostic.