Comparison of Scintigraphic RM-PIOPED Criteria and PISA-PED Criteria in the Diagnosis of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

倪新海,王峰,方纬,何建国,柳志红,熊长明,何作祥
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9780.2009.04.013
2009-01-01
Abstract:Objective Pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) is a relatively common and potentially fatal disorder. Clinical presentation and scintigraphy are highly useful for the diagnosis of acute PTE. This study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and concordance of different scintigraphic and clinical algo-rithms in the diagnosis of acute PTE. Methods One hundred and four consecutive patients with suspected acute PTE were enrolled and they underwent perfusion/ventilation (Q/V) scintigraphy, contrast enhanced multi slice spiral CT pulmonary angiography ( CTPA), chest radiography and other tests from October 2005 to July 2007. The analysis and subsequent grading of probability of pulmonary embolism were undertaken using three methods: the McMaster clinical criteria, the refined modified prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (RM-PIOPED) criteria, and the prospective investigative study of acute pulmonary em-bolism diagnosis (PISA-PED) criteria. Kappa test was used to analyze the degree of agreement among the diagnostic criteria. The differences between the diagnostic criteria were tested for significance using paramet-ric chi-square test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. The final clinical diagnosis was based on all imaging modalities, all available laboratory records, medical history and clinical therapeutic re-sponse. This "final clinical diagnosis" was regarded as the "gold standard" of this study. Results The concordance of PISA-PED criteria and RM-PIOPED criteria was good (Kappa = 0.92, P<0.05). Howev-er, the concordance of RM-PIOPED criteria and McMaster clinical criteria and the concordance of PISA-PED criteria and McMaster clinical criteria were low ( both Kappa =0.35, both P>0.05). Acute PTE was diagnosed in 55 (52.9%, 55/104) of the 104 patients. The sensitivities of McMaster clinical criteria, RM-PIOPED criteria and PISA-PED criteria were 69.1% (38/55), 90.9% (50/55) and 92.7% (51/55),respectively; the specificities were 73.5% (36/49), 73.5% (36/49) and 75.5% (37/49), respective-ly; the total consistent rates were 71.2% (74/104), 82.7% (86/104) and 84.6% (88/104), respec-tively. There was no statistical difference between the specificity of the three algorithms (X2=0.00,0.05, 0.05, all P>0.05). There was also no statistical difference between the sensitivities of RM-PIOPED criteria and PISA-PED criteria (X2=0.12, P>0.05). However, there was statistical difference between the sensitiv-ities of RM-PIOPED criteria and McMaster clinical criteria X2=8.18,P<0.05) and between PISA-PED criteria and McMaster clinical criteria (X2=9.95,P<0.05). Conclusions RM-PIOPED criteria and PISA-PED criteria both had good diagnostic accuracy in acute pulmonary embolism, and their correlative concord-ance was good. McMaster clinical criteria had relatively lower sensitivity and it should not be used alone.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?