The article reviews diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism, highlighting the roles and limitations of pulmonary angiography, contrast venography, and ventilation-perfusion scanning.
Supports selective ventilation-perfusion use in defined probabilities; leaves open integration of contemporary noninvasive strategies to reduce underdiagnosis.
Pulmonary angiography and contrast venography are nearly 100 percent sensitive and specific in making the diagnoses of pulmonary embolism and deep-vein thrombosis. Nevertheless, these conditions frequently go undetected, often with serious consequences. The standard approach to the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism involves the recognition of risk factors for the disorder and the presence of suggestive, albeit nonspecific, clinical findings, followed by ventilation–perfusion scanning. If the scan is normal, pulmonary embolism is ruled out. If, on the basis of the scan, the probability of pulmonary embolism is deemed to be high, treatment is indicated, except in unusual circumstances. Unfortunately, the . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Victor F. Tapson (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: