Key result
Dual-energy computed tomography demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy and concordance compared to V/Q-SPECT for detecting segmental perfusion defects in patients with suspected CTEPH (88.7% vs 80.8% agreement with pulmonary angiogram).
Why the study?
Dual-energy computed tomography currently ranks behind V/Q-SPECT in clinical guidelines for detecting CTEPH, prompting an assessment of its diagnostic accuracy against V/Q-SPECT using invasive pulmonary angiography as the reference standard.
Does DECT improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce radiation dose compared to V/Q-SPECT in patients with suspected CTEPH?
Cohort (n=28)
Blinded to clinical data and other imaging results
No
Does DECT improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce radiation dose compared to V/Q-SPECT in patients with suspected CTEPH?
Absolute Event Rate: 88.7% vs 80.8%
DECT provides superior segmental diagnostic accuracy and significantly lower radiation exposure compared to V/Q-SPECT for detecting CTEPH, supporting its potential as a primary imaging modality.
DECT may improve CTEPH diagnosis accuracy with less radiation than V/Q-SPECT; leaves open prospective validation.
Purpose The relevance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for the detection of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) still lies behind V/Q-SPECT in current clinical guidelines. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DECT compared to V/Q-SPECT with invasive pulmonary angiogram (PA) serving as the reference standard. Methods A total of 28 patients (mean age 62.1 years ± 10.6SD; 18 women) with clinically suspected CTEPH were retrospectively included. All patients received DECT with the calculation of iodine maps, V/Q-SPECT, and PA. Results of DECT and V/Q-SPECT were compared, and the percent of agreement, concordance (utilizing Cohen's kappa), and accuracy (kappa2) to PA were calculated. Furthermore, radiation doses were analyzed and compared. Results In total, 18 patients were diagnosed with CTEPH (mean age 62.4 years ± 11.0SD; 10 women) and 10 patients had other diseases. Compared to PA, accuracy and concordance for DECT were superior to V/Q-SPECT in all patients (88.9% vs. 81.3%; k = 0.764 vs. k = 0.607) and in CTEPH patients (82.4% vs. 70.1%; k = 0.694 vs. k = 0.560). Furthermore, the mean radiation dose was significantly lower for DECT vs. V/Q-SPECT (p = 0.0081). Conclusion In our patient cohort, DECT is at least equivalent to V/Q-SPECT in diagnosing CTEPH and has the added advantage of significantly lower radiation doses in combination with simultaneous assessment of lung and heart morphology. Hence, DECT should be the subject of ongoing research, and if our results are further confirmed, it should be implemented in future diagnostic PH algorithms at least on par with V/Q-SPECT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schüßler et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Suspected chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) (n=28). Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) vs. V/Q-SPECT was evaluated on Percent of agreement with pulmonary angiogram on the segment level. Dual-energy computed tomography demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy and concordance compared to V/Q-SPECT for detecting segmental perfusion defects in patients with suspected CTEPH (88.7% vs 80.8% agreement with pulmonary angiogram).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: