Literature DB >> 15855435

Clinical validity of a negative computed tomography scan in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a systematic review.

Rene Quiroz1, Nils Kucher, Kelly H Zou, Florian Kipfmueller, Philip Costello, Samuel Z Goldhaber, U Joseph Schoepf.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: The clinical validity of using computed tomography (CT) to diagnose peripheral pulmonary embolism is uncertain. Insufficient sensitivity for peripheral pulmonary embolism is considered the principal limitation of CT.
OBJECTIVE: To review studies that used a CT-based approach to rule out a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. DATA SOURCES: The medical literature databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CRISP, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane were searched for articles published in the English language from January 1990 to May 2004. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that used contrast-enhanced chest CT to rule out the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism, had a minimum follow-up of 3 months, and had study populations of more than 30 patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently abstracted patient demographics, frequency of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs), CT modality (single-slice CT, multidetector-row CT, or electron-beam CT), false-negative results, and deaths attributable to pulmonary embolism. To calculate the overall negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of a VTE after a negative or inconclusive chest CT scan for pulmonary embolism, we included VTEs that were objectively confirmed by an additional imaging test despite a negative or inconclusive CT scan and objectively confirmed VTEs that occurred during clinical follow-up of at least 3 months. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and contained a total of 3500 patients who were evaluated from October 1994 through April 2002. The overall NLR of a VTE after a negative chest CT scan for pulmonary embolism was 0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.11); and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.1% (95% CI, 98.7%-99.5%). The NLR of a VTE after a negative single-slice spiral CT scan for pulmonary embolism was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.05-0.13); and after a negative multidetector-row CT scan, 0.15 (95% CI, 0.05-0.43). There was no difference in risk of VTEs based on CT modality used (relative risk, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.47-5.94; P = .50). The overall NLR of mortality attributable to pulmonary embolism was 0.01 (95% CI, 0.01-0.02) and the overall NPV was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.7%-99.9%).
CONCLUSION: The clinical validity of using a CT scan to rule out pulmonary embolism is similar to that reported for conventional pulmonary angiography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15855435     DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.16.2012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  42 in total

1.  Pulmonary embolism: investigation of the clinically assessed intermediate risk subgroup.

Authors:  D J Warren; S Matthews
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Individually tailored contrast enhancement in CT pulmonary angiography.

Authors:  Babs M F Hendriks; Madeleine Kok; Casper Mihl; Sebastiaan C A M Bekkers; Joachim E Wildberger; Marco Das
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Massive pulmonary embolus with hemodynamic compromise: therapeutic options.

Authors:  Derek G Lohan; Carmel G Cronin; Conor P Meehan; Stephen T Kee; Michael D Dake; Ian R Davidson; Gerard J O'Sullivan
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2006-11-18

4.  Current diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in primary care: a clinical practice guideline from the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians.

Authors:  Amir Qaseem; Vincenza Snow; Patricia Barry; E Rodney Hornbake; Jonathan E Rodnick; Timothy Tobolic; Belinda Ireland; Jodi Segal; Eric Bass; Kevin B Weiss; Lee Green; Douglas K Owens
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

5.  Overestimation of clinical diagnostic performance caused by low necropsy rates.

Authors:  K G Shojania; E C Burton; K M McDonald; L Goldman
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2005-12

Review 6.  [Value of multislice CT for the work-up of pulmonary embolism].

Authors:  J Gellissen; S Kapsimalakou; B M Stoeckelhuber; A Lubienski; T Helmberger
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Should lung scan be abandoned for pulmonary embolism diagnosis in the age of multislice spiral CT? Yes.

Authors:  Edwin J R van Beek
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2009-04-18       Impact factor: 3.397

8.  Estimation of the radiation exposure of a chest pain protocol with ECG-gating in dual-source computed tomography.

Authors:  Dominik Ketelsen; Marie H Luetkhoff; Christoph Thomas; Matthias Werner; Markus Buchgeister; Ilias Tsiflikas; Anja Reimann; Christof Burgstahler; Andreas F Kopp; Claus D Claussen; Martin Heuschmid
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Comparison of ECG-gated versus non-gated CT ventricular measurements in thirty patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Michael T Lu; Tianxi Cai; Hale Ersoy; Amanda G Whitmore; Noah A Levit; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Frank J Rybicki
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-07-15       Impact factor: 2.357

10.  Initial experience with a chest pain protocol using 320-slice volume MDCT.

Authors:  Patrick A Hein; Valentina C Romano; Alexander Lembcke; Juliane May; Patrik Rogalla
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.