Key result
Helical CT detected right ventricular dysfunction in patients with acute pulmonary embolism with 78% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 100% positive predictive value.
Why the study?
Does helical CT accurately detect right ventricular dysfunction in patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Does helical CT accurately detect right ventricular dysfunction in patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Helical CT is highly specific and has a high positive predictive value for detecting right ventricular dysfunction in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.
Helical CT may specifically identify right ventricular dysfunction in acute pulmonary embolism; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of helical CT in detecting right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) after acute pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: This was a retrospective study consisting of 25 patients with CT scans positive for acute pulmonary embolism who had either follow-up echocardiography (23 patients) or pulmonary angiography (2 patients). CT scans were reviewed for findings suggestive of RVD. Scans were considered positive for RVD if the right ventricle (RV) was dilated or if the interventricular septum was deviated towards the left ventricle. Results were then correlated with the results of echocardiography or pulmonary angiography to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of CT in detecting RVD associated with PE. RESULTS: Within this group of 25 patients with PE, CT demonstrated sensitivity of 78% (7/9), specificity of 100% (16/16), and positive predictive value of 100% (7/7) in detection of RVD. CONCLUSION: CT may be useful in detecting RVD in patients with acute PE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Contractor et al. (2002) studied this question. Helical CT detected right ventricular dysfunction in patients with acute pulmonary embolism with 78% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 100% positive predictive value.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: