RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to document current imaging practices for diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism (PE) among physicians practicing in the United States and explore factors associated with these practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between September 2004 and February 2005, we surveyed by mail 855 physicians selected at random from membership lists of three professional organizations. Physicians reported their imaging practices and experiences in managing patients with suspected acute PE during the preceding 12 months. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 240 of 806 eligible participants (29.8%) practicing in 44 states: 86.7% of respondents believed that computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was the most useful imaging procedure for patients with acute PE compared with 8.3% for ventilation-perfusion (V-P) scintigraphy and 2.5% for conventional pulminary angiography (PA). After chest radiography, CTPA was the first imaging test requested 71.4% of the time compared with V-P scintigraphy (19.7%) and lower-limb venous ultrasound (5.8%). Participants received indeterminate or inconclusive results 46.4% of the time for V-P scintigraphy, 10.6% of the time for CTPA, and 2.2% of the time for PA. CTPA was available around the clock to 88.3% of participants compared with 53.8% for V-P scintigraphy and 42.5% for PA. A total of 68.6% of respondents received CTPA results in 2 hours or less (vs 37.5% for V-P scintigraphy and 22.9% for PA). CTPA also provided an alternative diagnosis to PE or showed other significant abnormalities 28.5% of the time, and these findings frequently altered management. CONCLUSION: US clinicians unequivocally prefer CTPA in patients with suspected acute PE. Reasons for this preference include availability and timely reporting, a lower rate of inconclusive results, and the additional diagnostic capabilities that CTPA can provide.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to document current imaging practices for diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism (PE) among physicians practicing in the United States and explore factors associated with these practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between September 2004 and February 2005, we surveyed by mail 855 physicians selected at random from membership lists of three professional organizations. Physicians reported their imaging practices and experiences in managing patients with suspected acute PE during the preceding 12 months. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 240 of 806 eligible participants (29.8%) practicing in 44 states: 86.7% of respondents believed that computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was the most useful imaging procedure for patients with acute PE compared with 8.3% for ventilation-perfusion (V-P) scintigraphy and 2.5% for conventional pulminary angiography (PA). After chest radiography, CTPA was the first imaging test requested 71.4% of the time compared with V-P scintigraphy (19.7%) and lower-limb venous ultrasound (5.8%). Participants received indeterminate or inconclusive results 46.4% of the time for V-P scintigraphy, 10.6% of the time for CTPA, and 2.2% of the time for PA. CTPA was available around the clock to 88.3% of participants compared with 53.8% for V-P scintigraphy and 42.5% for PA. A total of 68.6% of respondents received CTPA results in 2 hours or less (vs 37.5% for V-P scintigraphy and 22.9% for PA). CTPA also provided an alternative diagnosis to PE or showed other significant abnormalities 28.5% of the time, and these findings frequently altered management. CONCLUSION: US clinicians unequivocally prefer CTPA in patients with suspected acute PE. Reasons for this preference include availability and timely reporting, a lower rate of inconclusive results, and the additional diagnostic capabilities that CTPA can provide.
Authors: Errol Colak; Felipe C Kitamura; Stephen B Hobbs; Carol C Wu; Matthew P Lungren; Luciano M Prevedello; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Robyn L Ball; George Shih; Anouk Stein; Safwan S Halabi; Emre Altinmakas; Meng Law; Parveen Kumar; Karam A Manzalawi; Dennis Charles Nelson Rubio; Jacob W Sechrist; Pauline Germaine; Eva Castro Lopez; Tomas Amerio; Pushpender Gupta; Manoj Jain; Fernando U Kay; Cheng Ting Lin; Saugata Sen; Jonathan Wesley Revels; Carola C Brussaard; John Mongan Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2021-01-20
Authors: Michael D Repplinger; Rebecca L Bracken; Brian W Patterson; Manish N Shah; Michael S Pulia; John B Harringa; Mark L Schiebler; Scott K Nagle Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Karl E Minges; Behnood Bikdeli; Yun Wang; Nancy Kim; Jeptha P Curtis; Mayur M Desai; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Daniel Runde; Kaushal Shah; Leily Naraghi; Brandon Godbout; Jonathan Kirschner; David Newman; Dan Wiener; Jarone Lee Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2014-04-12