;
Original Article
Pak J Nucl Med. 2020; 10(1): 38-48

A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH

Authors: Michael Tong, Janelle Wheat, Geoffrey M Currie.

View PDF HTML FullText DOI: 10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253

Abstract

Introduction: The diagnostic approach to patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and its clinical complication of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is usually a combination of clinical and pretest probability assessments, and definitive diagnostic imaging. Diagnostic studies and imaging procedures, such as ventilation and perfusion scintigraphy (V/Q), computed tomography (CT), pulmonary angiography, and CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA), play an important role and have proven to be excellent complements in accurately confirming or ruling out the presence of PE and CTEPH. The purpose of this review is to compare and aggregate the available data from PE and CTEPH diagnosis studies carried out using the imaging techniques of CTPA, single-photon emission CT (SPECT) V/Q, and planar V/Q. Methods: A systemic review was conducted with participants who were limited to patients with or suspected with PE or CTEPH. No age limitations, geographic, and gender differentiations were imposed. Pooled sensitivity and specificity performances, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR), the I-square (I2) value of heterogeneity SROC curves, and the area under the curve were generated. The Q* value was calculated to define the point where sensitivity and specificity are equal. Results: Twenty-six studies totalling 5,637 patients were reviewed. The majority of the studies included the comparison of techniques within or between the different imaging modalities. For PE, the patient pool for CTPA was 904, for SPECT V/Q was 3717, and for planar V/Q was 1016, with sensitivity of 84%, 94%, and 85%, respectively, and corresponding specificity of 94%, 99%, and 85%, respectively. For CTEPH, the patient pool for CTPA was 488 for patient-based and 2,538 vessels for vessel-based, and for V/Q was 530, with sensitivity of 76%, 95%, and 98%, respectively, and corresponding specificity of 95%, 96%, and 93%, respectively. Conclusion: This review demonstrated superior sensitivity and specificity of V/Q SPECT over CTPA and planar V/Q for the diagnosis of PE. Likewise, for CTEPH, V/Q demonstrated superior sensitivity and specificity, although in a select subgroup of CTPA patients assessed on a per vessel basis, performance was improved. Wherever available, V/Q SPECT should be used as the first line imaging tool for PE and CTEPH.

Keywords:   Lung scan, ventilation, perfusion, pulmonary hypertension, CTPA, VQ.


Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any part or all of this article please contact the copyright holder, contact@pjnmed.com.

Copyright © 2020 Discover STM Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH


Authors
Michael Tong
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, NUHS Tower Block, National University Hospital, Singapore, Australia
PubMed articlesGoogle scholar articles

Janelle Wheat
School of Dentistry and Health Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga, Australia
PubMed articlesGoogle scholar articles

Geoffrey M Currie
School of Dentistry and Health Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga, Australia
PubMed articlesGoogle scholar articles


Correspondence to:
. Geoffrey M. Currie, School of Dentistry and Health Sciences. Charles Sturt University, Wagga, Australia.; gcurrie@csu.edu.au

Publication history
Received 09 Jan 2020
Revised 19 May 2020
Accepted 29 May 2020
Published online 11 Jun 2020
Published in print 11 Sep 2020
Export to EndNote Export to refMan

How to cite this article

Pubmed Style

Tong M, Wheat J, Currie GM. A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH. Pak J Nucl Med. 2020; 10(1): 38-48. doi:10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253


Web Style

Tong M, Wheat J, Currie GM. A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH. http://www.pjnmed.com/?mno=81198 [Access: August 02, 2021]. doi:10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253


AMA (American Medical Association) Style

Tong M, Wheat J, Currie GM. A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH. Pak J Nucl Med. 2020; 10(1): 38-48. doi:10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253


Vancouver/ICMJE Style

Tong M, Wheat J, Currie GM. A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH. Pak J Nucl Med. (2020), [cited August 02, 2021]; 10(1): 38-48. doi:10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253


Harvard Style

Tong, M., Wheat, . J. & Currie, . G. M. (2020) A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH. Pak J Nucl Med, 10 (1), 38-48. doi:10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253


Turabian Style

Tong, Michael, Janelle Wheat, and Geoffrey M Currie. 2020. A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH. Pakistan Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 10 (1), 38-48. doi:10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253


Chicago Style

Tong, Michael, Janelle Wheat, and Geoffrey M Currie. "A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH." Pakistan Journal of Nuclear Medicine 10 (2020), 38-48. doi:10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253


MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style

Tong, Michael, Janelle Wheat, and Geoffrey M Currie. "A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH." Pakistan Journal of Nuclear Medicine 10.1 (2020), 38-48. Print. doi:10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253


APA (American Psychological Association) Style

Tong, M., Wheat, . J. & Currie, . G. M. (2020) A review of medical imaging in the evaluation of PE and CTEPH. Pakistan Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 10 (1), 38-48. doi:10.24911/PJNMed.175-1578555253


Click the icon of the social media platform on which you would like to share this article.