| Literature DB >> 23820021 |
Renda Soylemez Wiener1, Lisa M Schwartz, Steven Woloshin.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23820021 PMCID: PMC4688549 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f3368
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ ISSN: 0959-8138
Comparison of imaging tests to diagnose pulmonary embolism
| Pulmonary angiography | Ventilation-perfusion scan | Computed tomography pulmonary angiography | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year introduced | 1931 | 1964 | 1998 |
| Accuracy relative to gold standard | Gold standard | Sensitivity 98%, specificity: 10% | Sensitivity 96-100%, specificity: 89-98% |
| Advantages | Gold standard diagnostic test | Non-invasive | High sensitivity and specificity |
| No contrast dye (safe for patients with renal impairment) | Visualises lung parenchyma as well as vasculature | ||
| Widely available | Widely available | ||
| Less radiation exposure | |||
| Disadvantages | Invasive test with potential complication of bleeding | Scans hard to interpret | Too much resolution |
| Often indeterminate | Finds many subsegmental emboli of unclear importance | ||
| Nephrotoxic contrast and moderate radiation exposure | Abnormal chest x ray appearance makes it even harder to interpret | ||
| Incidental findings like pulmonary nodules | |||
| More limited availability | |||
| Higher radiation exposure and nephrotoxic contrast |

Incidence, mortality, and case fatality of pulmonary embolism in United States, 1993-2006.26