OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of spiral computed tomography (CT) versus ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scanning in the examination of patients clinically suspected of having pulmonary embolism (PE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-three patients, presenting to the emergency department and departments of radiology and nuclear medicine of a large hospital, highly suspected of having PE, underwent sequential imaging testing with V/Q scanning and contrast-enhanced spiral CT, in addition to other clinical and laboratory tests. RESULTS: PE was diagnosed in 42 (66.7%) of the 63 patients. Thirty-nine of these 42 patients had positive findings in their CT scans, while 18 of the remaining 21 patients without PE had negative findings in their spiral CT [sensitivity, 92.9%, specificity, 85.7% Positive Predictive Value (PPV), 92.9%, Negative Predictive Value (NPV), 85.7%]. V/Q scans showed high-probability of PE in 24 of the 42 patients with PE and were negative in 9 of the remaining 21 patients without PE (sensitivity, 571%, specificity, 42.9%, PPV, 66.7%, NPV, 33.3%). There were statistically significant differences in specificity and sensitivity favoring spiral CT among men and women patients or patients > 50 years old. Fifty-four patients (85.7%) rated their satisfaction towards spiral CT as 'good' or 'very good', whereas the respective rate for V/Q scanning was only 14.3%. CONCLUSION: Spiral CT has an excellent sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the diagnosis of PE and it could be used as the first-line imaging modality in patients suspected of PE.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of spiral computed tomography (CT) versus ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scanning in the examination of patients clinically suspected of having pulmonary embolism (PE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-three patients, presenting to the emergency department and departments of radiology and nuclear medicine of a large hospital, highly suspected of having PE, underwent sequential imaging testing with V/Q scanning and contrast-enhanced spiral CT, in addition to other clinical and laboratory tests. RESULTS: PE was diagnosed in 42 (66.7%) of the 63 patients. Thirty-nine of these 42 patients had positive findings in their CT scans, while 18 of the remaining 21 patients without PE had negative findings in their spiral CT [sensitivity, 92.9%, specificity, 85.7% Positive Predictive Value (PPV), 92.9%, Negative Predictive Value (NPV), 85.7%]. V/Q scans showed high-probability of PE in 24 of the 42 patients with PE and were negative in 9 of the remaining 21 patients without PE (sensitivity, 571%, specificity, 42.9%, PPV, 66.7%, NPV, 33.3%). There were statistically significant differences in specificity and sensitivity favoring spiral CT among men and womenpatients or patients > 50 years old. Fifty-four patients (85.7%) rated their satisfaction towards spiral CT as 'good' or 'very good', whereas the respective rate for V/Q scanning was only 14.3%. CONCLUSION: Spiral CT has an excellent sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the diagnosis of PE and it could be used as the first-line imaging modality in patients suspected of PE.