Chest ACCP Education Calendar
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
(Chest. 1995;107:33S-38S.)
© 1995 American College of Chest Physicians

Invasive and Noninvasive Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism

Preliminary Results of the Prospective Investigative Study of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PISA-PED)

;The PISA-PED Investigators1

1 From the Istituto di Fisiologia Clinica CNR and Istituto di Clinica Medica II, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

It is maintained that pulmonary angiography is required for confirmation or exclusion of pulmonary embolism in the majority of patients suspected of having pulmonary embolism. The aim of this study was to reappraise the role of perfusion scan in conjunction with clinical assessment in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and to identify subsets of patients in whom angiography is strictly required for definitive diagnosis. At the time of referral, each of 252 consecutive patients was assigned a clinical probability of pulmonary embolism (very likely, possible, unlikely). Perfusion scan was subsequently obtained and assigned to one of the following categories: (1) normal; (2) near normal; (3) single or multiple wedge-shaped perfusion defects compatible with pulmonary embolism (PE+); (4) perfusion defects other than wedge-shaped not compatible with pulmonary embolism (PE-). By protocol, angiography had to be obtained in all patients with abnormal scan (PE+ and PE-). The protocol was completed in 176 patients (107 with normal/near normal and 69 with abnormal scan in whom a definitive diagnosis was reached). The overall rate of correct clinical classification was 86%. Sensitivity and specificity of PE+ perfusion scan were 89 and 92%, respectively. Pulmonary embolism was present in all 37 patients with very likely or possible clinical presentation and PE+ scan (positive predictive value 100%) and in 2 of 17 cases with low likelihood of pulmonary embolism and PE- scan (negative predictive value of 88%). These preliminary results indicate that pulmonary embolism can be diagnosed noninvasively in the majority of cases and that angiography is strictly required only for a minority of patients (21% in this study) in whom clinical and perfusion scan assessment are discordant.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American College of Chest Physicians.