Pulmonary embolism ventilation/perfusion scan: Difference between revisions
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
# Patients who have a known allergy to iodinated contrast. To read more about contrast allergy, click [[Contrast medium#Allergy Reactions|here]]. | # Patients who have a known allergy to iodinated contrast. To read more about contrast allergy, click [[Contrast medium#Allergy Reactions|here]]. | ||
# In pregnant patients, to minimize exposure to radiation. | # In pregnant patients, to minimize exposure to radiation. | ||
# For patients who are in a hospital lacking | # For patients who are in a hospital lacking CT technology. | ||
===Interpretation=== | ===Interpretation=== | ||
Revision as of 16:09, 9 May 2012
|
Pulmonary Embolism Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Pulmonary Embolism Assessment of Probability of Subsequent VTE and Risk Scores |
|
Treatment |
|
Follow-Up |
|
Special Scenario |
|
Trials |
|
Case Studies |
|
Pulmonary embolism ventilation/perfusion scan On the Web |
|
Directions to Hospitals Treating Pulmonary embolism ventilation/perfusion scan |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Pulmonary embolism ventilation/perfusion scan |
Editor(s)-In-Chief: The APEX Trial Investigators, C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-In-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]
Overview
A ventilation/perfusion scan (otherwise known as V/Q scan or lung scintigraphy) is a study which shows whether an area of the lung is being ventilated with oxygen and perfused with blood. In the setting of a PE, perfusion can be obstructed due to the formation of a clot. The V/Q scan is less commonly used due to the more widespread availability of CT technology, however it may be useful in patients who have an allergy to iodinated contrast, or in pregnancy to minimize radiation exposure.
Ventilation/perfusion scan
Principle
Technetium (Tc)-99m labeled macro-aggregated albumin particles, when injected, fill small fractions of the pulmonary capillaries and thus help in the assessment of lung perfusion at the tissue level via scintigraphy. When any branch of the pulmonary artery is occluded, the particles will not reach the capillaries rendering the area "cold" on imaging.
Indications
V/Q scan is a less preferred method of evaluation due to the more widespread availability of CT technology, however It may be useful in particular subgroups of patients, such as:
- Patients who have a known allergy to iodinated contrast. To read more about contrast allergy, click here.
- In pregnant patients, to minimize exposure to radiation.
- For patients who are in a hospital lacking CT technology.
Interpretation
The following table summarizes the possible outcomes of a V/Q scan:
| V/Q Scan | Clinical Probability | Diagnosis |
|---|---|---|
| Normal | any probability | PE excluded[1] |
| Low probability scan | Low | PE excluded |
| High probability scan | High | PE confirmed |
| Variable result/Non diagnostic | Variable | Serial lower extremity USG or Pulmonary angiography |
Taking anatomical data into consideration, any defect that is located pleurally and have triangular/concave shape and in the anatomical distribution of a lung segment should be considered segmental in nature. It should also be noted that a defect of right lower lobe involving the medial basal segment may be undetectable in any view.[2]
Supportive Trial Data
The PIOPED data suggested, that the normal perfusion scans are almost never associated with recurrent pulmonary embolism, even if anticoagulation is withheld. The other highlights of this study were:
- High-probability scans, however only identified 41% of patients with PE.
- In the setting of a high pre-test probability, a high-prob scan revealed PE in 95% of cases.
- Unfortunately, 41% of all scans in PIOPED were interpreted as intermediate, and an additional 16% were interpreted as low-probability.
- Upon angiography, however, 30 and 14% of these patients respectively were found to have PE.
- Based on these numbers, there has been a huge movement to abolish the low-probability, and intermediate-probability categories, and have readings either be high-probability, normal, or non-diagnostic.
- It should also be realized that the false-positive rate for high-prob scans was 14%, and that 72% of patients in PIOPED had a clinical – scan combination that required further investigation.
- It has been suggested by some authors that in patients with an intermediate pre-test probability of PE, a venous ultrasound would provide the same justification for anticoagulation, as would a confirmed PE. Although, false positive results on venous ultrasound (3 percent patient reported in a study) would result in the use of anticoagulation in patients without PE.[3]
Comparison with CT Pulmonary angiography
- Spiral CT scanning is now a standard modality to non-invasively diagnose PE.[4]
- Initial studies reported sensitivities for diagnosing emboli to the segmental level (4th order branch) as high as 98%, however subsequent studies have found sensitivities to be lower.
- The sensitivity is higher with more proximal clot.
- Although smaller clot, in the subsegmental arteries, is certainly not as physiologically important as the larger, more proximal clot, they may be important predictors of future, larger clots.
- The study consisting of 142 patients concluded that the sensitivity and specificity of CT angiography is higher than that of V/Q scan, as is the inter-observer agreement.[5]
- They recommend getting a CT angiography as the next test following an indeterminate V/Q scan, however caution that if the pre-test probability is ‘sufficiently high’, a standard angiogram should still be obtained after a negative CT angiography.
- A cost-effective analysis using spiral CT angiography for the diagnosis of PE showed the following result.[6]
- The use of CT angiography in a diagnostic algorithm was by far and away a more cost-effective strategy.
- If the sensitivity of CT angiography was < 85%, conventional angiography was associated with a lower mortality, but still remained a more expensive strategy.
- According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the radiation exposure, from a lung scan with 100 MBq of Tc-99 m macroaggregate of albumi (MAA) is 1.1 mSv.
- The radiation exposure from spiral CT is 2–6 mSv.[7]
- The radiation exposure from plain chest X-ray is approximately 0.05 mSv.
Benefits of V/Q Scan over CT
- Less radiation exposure.
- Diagnosis of choice in institution lacking CT facility or inexperienced staff.
Benefits of CTPA over V/Q Scan
- Cost effective.
- CTPA may additionally identify right heart dysfunction or alternative diagnoses.
References
- ↑ Hoeper MM (2009). "Definition, classification, and epidemiology of pulmonary arterial hypertension". Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 30 (4): 369–75. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1233306. PMID 19634076. Retrieved 2011-12-06. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help) - ↑ Morrell NW, Roberts CM, Jones BE, Nijran KS, Biggs T, Seed WA (1992). "The anatomy of radioisotope lung scanning". J. Nucl. Med. 33 (5): 676–83. PMID 1569475. Retrieved 2012-01-12. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help) - ↑ Turkstra F, Kuijer PM, van Beek EJ, Brandjes DP, ten Cate JW, Büller HR (1997). "Diagnostic utility of ultrasonography of leg veins in patients suspected of having pulmonary embolism". Ann. Intern. Med. 126 (10): 775–81. PMID 9148650. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help);|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ↑ Schoepf UJ, Goldhaber SZ, Costello P (2004). "Spiral computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism". Circulation. 109 (18): 2160–7. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000128813.04325.08. PMID 15136509. Retrieved 2011-12-05. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help) - ↑ Mayo JR, Remy-Jardin M, Müller NL, Remy J, Worsley DF, Hossein-Foucher C, Kwong JS, Brown MJ (1997). "Pulmonary embolism: prospective comparison of spiral CT with ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy". Radiology. 205 (2): 447–52. PMID 9356627. Retrieved 2011-12-06. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help) - ↑ van Erkel AR, van Rossum AB, Bloem JL, Kievit J, Pattynama PM (1996). "Spiral CT angiography for suspected pulmonary embolism: a cost-effectiveness analysis". Radiology. 201 (1): 29–36. PMID 8816516. Retrieved 2011-12-05. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help) - ↑ "Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals (addendum 2 to ICRP publication 53)". Ann ICRP. 28 (3): 1–126. 1998. PMID 10840563. Retrieved 2011-12-06.