Chest ACCP Career Connection
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 Free
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
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, T. P.
Right arrow Articles by Brodwater, B. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, T. P.
Right arrow Articles by Brodwater, B. K.
(Chest. 2002;122:968-972.)
© 2002 American College of Chest Physicians

Acute Pulmonary Thromboembolism*

Comparison of the Diagnostic Capabilities of Conventional Film-Screen and Digital Angiography

Tony P. Smith, MD; J. Mark Ryan, MD and Brian K. Brodwater, MD{dagger}

* From the Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. {dagger} Currently at New Hanover Regional Medical Center, Wilmington, NC.

Correspondence to: Tony P. Smith, MD, Department of Radiology, Room 1502, Box 3808, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710; e-mail: smith146{at}mc.duke.edu

Study objective: To compare digital to conventional film-screen pulmonary angiography for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in a clinical population.

Design: Retrospective review of patient data, ventilation/perfusion (/) lung scintigraphy reports, and pulmonary angiographic reports.

Setting: University hospital, division of interventional radiology.

Patients and methods: Patient data from 307 film-screen and 266 digital angiograms were analyzed for demographics, / lung scintigraphy findings, and pulmonary artery pressures to define patient populations. The interpretations of film-screen pulmonary angiography were then compared with digital angiography interpretations for the entire group of interventional radiologists as well as the two interventionists who practiced throughout the study interval to determine any difference in rates of diagnosis of acute PE between the two techniques.

Results: There was no significant difference between the patient populations studied by film-screen or digital techniques for the data reviewed. Digital angiography utilized significantly more contrast material (digital, 173 mL; film-screen, 145 mL; p < 0.01) and a greater number of angiographic views (digital, 3.6 views per patient; film-screen, 3.4 views per patient; p = 0.04) when compared with film-screen angiography. There was no difference between the two techniques in the rates of diagnosis of acute PE, for individual radiologists or overall.

Conclusions: Digital and film-screen pulmonary angiography possess equivalent diagnostic capabilities for acute PE as used in a clinical setting.

Key Words: comparative studies • digital subtraction angiography • pulmonary angiography • pulmonary embolism






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American College of Chest Physicians.