Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hagspiel, K. D.
Right arrow Articles by Meyerovitz, M. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hagspiel, K. D.
Right arrow Articles by Meyerovitz, M. F.

Radiology, Vol 207, 139-145, Copyright © 1998 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Pulmonary embolism: comparison of cut-film and digital pulmonary angiography

KD Hagspiel, JF Polak, CJ Grassi, BB Faitelson, K Kandarpa and MF Meyerovitz
Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115-6110, USA.

PURPOSE: To compare "cut-film" (film hard-copy) angiography (CFA) with digital pulmonary angiography in the detection of pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six adult patients (39 lungs) underwent selective digital pulmonary angiography for suspected PE. Imaging was repeated in one selected projection by using cut film. The standard was consensus interpretation of both CFA and digital angiographic images and clinical course. Three vascular radiologists subsequently reviewed the digital and cut-film images in a blinded fashion and ranked the likelihood of the presence of PE on a five-point scale. The two modalities were compared by means of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Image quality (i.e., sharpness, opacification of subsegmental vessels, and exposure) was judged on a three-point scale. The highest-order pulmonary artery branch seen on each study was recorded. RESULTS: ROC curve analyses for all three operators showed similar diagnostic performance for digital pulmonary angiography and CFA, with one operator showing better performance with digital subtraction angiography than with CFA (P = .04). Compared with the final diagnosis, single-plane digital pulmonary angiography had higher sensitivity for the detection of PE than had CFA. The specificity was 100% for both modalities. The mean score in patients with findings positive for PE was higher in the digital pulmonary angiography group than in the CFA group (P < .005). There was no difference in the mean score in patients who did not have a PE. There also was no difference in the smallest detectable subsegmental branch (P = .87) or in the average estimate of image quality. CONCLUSION: Selective digital pulmonary angiography and CFA offer similar diagnostic performance and image quality. Digital pulmonary angiography is a reasonable alternative to CFA in the diagnosis of PE.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ChestHome page
T. P. Smith, J. M. Ryan, and B. K. Brodwater
Acute Pulmonary Thromboembolism* : Comparison of the Diagnostic Capabilities of Conventional Film-Screen and Digital Angiography
Chest, September 1, 2002; 122(3): 968 - 972.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
A.B. Donkers-van Rossum
Diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism
Eur. Respir. J., September 1, 2001; 18(3): 589 - 597.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
Guidelines on diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism
Eur. Heart J., August 2, 2000; 21(16): 1301 - 1336.
[PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
M. F. Meyerovitz, F. Mannting, J. F. Polak, and S. Z. Goldhaber
Frequency of Pulmonary Embolism in Patients with Low-Probability Lung Scan and Negative Lower Extremity Venous Ultrasound
Chest, April 1, 1999; 115(4): 980 - 982.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1998 by the Radiological Society of North America.