急性肺栓塞的影像学诊断。

F. Christiansen
{"title":"急性肺栓塞的影像学诊断。","authors":"F. Christiansen","doi":"10.15197/jcdcc.00044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The common strategy of combining clinical information, lung scintigraphy and pulmonary angiography in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), has many limitations in clinical use. The major causes are that pulmonary angiography and lung scintigraphy are not universally available, and that pulmonary angiography is very expensive. The purpose of this thesis was to analyse different aspects of validity in regard to lung scintigraphy, pulmonary angiography, spiral CT, and ultrasound of the legs, with the subsequent intention of discussing new diagnostic strategies. Observer variations in lung scintigraphy interpretation when applying the PIOPED criteria were tested in 2 studies with 2 and 3 observers respectively and expressed as kappa values. The ability to improve agreement in lung scintigraphy interpretation was tested by training 2 observers from different hospitals. The impact of 3 observers' variations in lung scintigraphy interpretation when compared to pulmonary angiography, was tested by comparing the ROC areas of the observers. The value of combining subjectively derived numerical probabilities and the PIOPED categorical probabilities in lung scintigraphy reporting was compared to using the PIOPED categorization only, and this was tested by comparing ROC areas. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting an embolic source in the deep veins of the legs by ultrasound as a sign of PE when lung scintigraphy is inconclusive, was tested by comparison with pulmonary angiography. The sensitivity and specificity of spiral CT, compared to pulmonary angiography, was tested by comparison to pulmonary angiography. The inter- and intra-observer kappa values were in the range of moderate and fair. It was not possible to achieve better kappa values after training. Although observer variations were substantial, the accuracy did not differ significantly between the 3 observers. Incoorporating subjectively derived probabilities into lung scan reporting could not reduce the number of inconclusive investigations. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in detecting PE was 0.70 and 0.97, respectively. However, 2 patients (of 9) had deep venous thrombosis and no pulmonary emboli at angiography. The sensitivity and specificity of spiral CT was 0.90 and 0.96, respectively. The observer variations at lung scintigraphy are substantial and may be difficult to improve between hospitals, even though the accuracy of observers in general is good. Although subjectively derived interpretation criteria did not show to be useful when added to categorical interpretation criteria, they may be useful when substituting established criteria. Despite recent progress in refining interpretation criteria, a substantial fraction of the patients still need pulmonary angiography to be performed. However, in many patients pulmonary angiography is not performed as prescribed. Spiral CT and ultrasound of the legs is a new favourable diagnostic strategy with a high validity in detecting venous thromboembolic disease, and a good availability and cost-effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":7159,"journal":{"name":"Acta radiologica. Supplementum","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic imaging of acute pulmonary embolism.\",\"authors\":\"F. Christiansen\",\"doi\":\"10.15197/jcdcc.00044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The common strategy of combining clinical information, lung scintigraphy and pulmonary angiography in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), has many limitations in clinical use. The major causes are that pulmonary angiography and lung scintigraphy are not universally available, and that pulmonary angiography is very expensive. The purpose of this thesis was to analyse different aspects of validity in regard to lung scintigraphy, pulmonary angiography, spiral CT, and ultrasound of the legs, with the subsequent intention of discussing new diagnostic strategies. Observer variations in lung scintigraphy interpretation when applying the PIOPED criteria were tested in 2 studies with 2 and 3 observers respectively and expressed as kappa values. The ability to improve agreement in lung scintigraphy interpretation was tested by training 2 observers from different hospitals. The impact of 3 observers' variations in lung scintigraphy interpretation when compared to pulmonary angiography, was tested by comparing the ROC areas of the observers. The value of combining subjectively derived numerical probabilities and the PIOPED categorical probabilities in lung scintigraphy reporting was compared to using the PIOPED categorization only, and this was tested by comparing ROC areas. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting an embolic source in the deep veins of the legs by ultrasound as a sign of PE when lung scintigraphy is inconclusive, was tested by comparison with pulmonary angiography. The sensitivity and specificity of spiral CT, compared to pulmonary angiography, was tested by comparison to pulmonary angiography. The inter- and intra-observer kappa values were in the range of moderate and fair. It was not possible to achieve better kappa values after training. Although observer variations were substantial, the accuracy did not differ significantly between the 3 observers. Incoorporating subjectively derived probabilities into lung scan reporting could not reduce the number of inconclusive investigations. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in detecting PE was 0.70 and 0.97, respectively. However, 2 patients (of 9) had deep venous thrombosis and no pulmonary emboli at angiography. The sensitivity and specificity of spiral CT was 0.90 and 0.96, respectively. The observer variations at lung scintigraphy are substantial and may be difficult to improve between hospitals, even though the accuracy of observers in general is good. Although subjectively derived interpretation criteria did not show to be useful when added to categorical interpretation criteria, they may be useful when substituting established criteria. Despite recent progress in refining interpretation criteria, a substantial fraction of the patients still need pulmonary angiography to be performed. However, in many patients pulmonary angiography is not performed as prescribed. Spiral CT and ultrasound of the legs is a new favourable diagnostic strategy with a high validity in detecting venous thromboembolic disease, and a good availability and cost-effectiveness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta radiologica. Supplementum\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta radiologica. Supplementum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15197/jcdcc.00044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta radiologica. Supplementum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15197/jcdcc.00044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

在诊断急性肺栓塞(PE)时,通常采用临床信息、肺显像和肺血管造影相结合的诊断策略,在临床应用中存在许多局限性。主要原因是肺血管造影和肺闪烁成像不能普遍使用,而且肺血管造影非常昂贵。本论文的目的是分析不同方面的有效性有关肺闪烁成像,肺血管造影,螺旋CT,和腿的超声,随后的目的是讨论新的诊断策略。在两项研究中,分别有2名和3名观察者,分别测试了应用piped标准时肺闪烁成像解释的观察者变化,并以kappa值表示。通过培训来自不同医院的2名观察员来检验提高肺显像解释一致性的能力。通过比较观察者的ROC面积来检验3名观察者的差异对肺血管造影解释的影响。将主观推导的数值概率与piped分类概率相结合在肺扫描报告中的价值与仅使用piped分类进行比较,并通过比较ROC面积进行检验。在肺显像不确定的情况下,通过超声检测下肢深静脉栓塞源作为PE征象的敏感性和特异性,与肺血管造影进行比较。通过与肺血管造影的比较来检验螺旋CT与肺血管造影的敏感性和特异性。观察者之间和观察者内部的kappa值在中等和一般的范围内。训练后不可能达到更好的kappa值。虽然观测者的差异很大,但3个观测者之间的准确性没有显著差异。将主观得出的概率纳入肺扫描报告并不能减少不确定调查的数量。超声检测PE的灵敏度为0.70,特异度为0.97。然而,9例患者中有2例有深静脉血栓形成,血管造影时无肺栓塞。螺旋CT的敏感性为0.90,特异性为0.96。尽管观察者的准确性总体上是好的,但肺闪烁成像的观察者差异是实质性的,并且可能难以在医院之间改善。虽然主观推导的解释标准在加入分类解释标准时没有显示出有用,但它们在取代既定标准时可能有用。尽管最近在细化解释标准方面取得了进展,但仍有相当一部分患者需要进行肺血管造影。然而,许多患者没有按照规定进行肺血管造影。下肢螺旋CT和超声是一种新的诊断策略,对静脉血栓栓塞性疾病的诊断具有较高的有效性,具有良好的可得性和成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic imaging of acute pulmonary embolism.
The common strategy of combining clinical information, lung scintigraphy and pulmonary angiography in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), has many limitations in clinical use. The major causes are that pulmonary angiography and lung scintigraphy are not universally available, and that pulmonary angiography is very expensive. The purpose of this thesis was to analyse different aspects of validity in regard to lung scintigraphy, pulmonary angiography, spiral CT, and ultrasound of the legs, with the subsequent intention of discussing new diagnostic strategies. Observer variations in lung scintigraphy interpretation when applying the PIOPED criteria were tested in 2 studies with 2 and 3 observers respectively and expressed as kappa values. The ability to improve agreement in lung scintigraphy interpretation was tested by training 2 observers from different hospitals. The impact of 3 observers' variations in lung scintigraphy interpretation when compared to pulmonary angiography, was tested by comparing the ROC areas of the observers. The value of combining subjectively derived numerical probabilities and the PIOPED categorical probabilities in lung scintigraphy reporting was compared to using the PIOPED categorization only, and this was tested by comparing ROC areas. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting an embolic source in the deep veins of the legs by ultrasound as a sign of PE when lung scintigraphy is inconclusive, was tested by comparison with pulmonary angiography. The sensitivity and specificity of spiral CT, compared to pulmonary angiography, was tested by comparison to pulmonary angiography. The inter- and intra-observer kappa values were in the range of moderate and fair. It was not possible to achieve better kappa values after training. Although observer variations were substantial, the accuracy did not differ significantly between the 3 observers. Incoorporating subjectively derived probabilities into lung scan reporting could not reduce the number of inconclusive investigations. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in detecting PE was 0.70 and 0.97, respectively. However, 2 patients (of 9) had deep venous thrombosis and no pulmonary emboli at angiography. The sensitivity and specificity of spiral CT was 0.90 and 0.96, respectively. The observer variations at lung scintigraphy are substantial and may be difficult to improve between hospitals, even though the accuracy of observers in general is good. Although subjectively derived interpretation criteria did not show to be useful when added to categorical interpretation criteria, they may be useful when substituting established criteria. Despite recent progress in refining interpretation criteria, a substantial fraction of the patients still need pulmonary angiography to be performed. However, in many patients pulmonary angiography is not performed as prescribed. Spiral CT and ultrasound of the legs is a new favourable diagnostic strategy with a high validity in detecting venous thromboembolic disease, and a good availability and cost-effectiveness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信