• M Bajc, B Olsson, J Palmer, and B Jonson.
• Department of Clinical Physiology, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. marika.bajc@med.lu.se
• J. Intern. Med. 2008 Oct 1; 264 (4): 379-87.

AimThe aim of this retrospective study is to illustrate clinical utility and impact of pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnostics of up to date Ventilation/Perfusion SPECT (V/P (SPECT)) applying holistic interpretation criteria.Material And MethodsDuring a 2-year period 2328 consecutive patients referred to V/P(SPECT) for clinically suspected PE were examined. Final diagnosis was established by physicians clinically responsible for patient care. To establish the performance of V/P(SPECT) negative for PE, patients were followed up by medical records for 6 months.ResultsVentilation/Perfusion SPECT was feasible in 99% of the patients. Data for follow-up were available in 1785 patients (77%). PE was reported in 607 patients (34%). Normal pattern was described in 420 patients (25%). Pathology other than PE such as a pneumonia, left heart failure, obstructive lung disease, tumour was described in 724 patients (41%). Report was nondiagnostic in 19 patients (1%). Six cases were classified as falsely negative because PE was diagnosed at follow-up and was fatal in one case. Six cases were classified as falsely positive because the clinician decided not to treat. In 608 patients with final PE diagnosis, 601 patients had positive V/P(SPECT) (99%). In 1177 patients without final PE diagnosis 1153 patients had negative V/P(SPECT) (98%).ConclusionsHolistic interpretation of V/P(SPECT,) yields high negative and positive predictive values and only 1% of nondiagnostic findings and was feasible in 99% of patients. It is a responsibility and a challenge of nuclear medicine to provide optimal care of patients with suspected PE by making V/P(SPECT) available.

24 keywords...

hide…