Key result
Automated CTPA quantification differentiates PE from CTEPH using the aorta to pulmonary trunk density gradient.
Why the study?
The shape and distribution of vascular lesions differ between pulmonary embolism and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, and automated quantification methods to distinguish them are needed.
Can automated quantification of pulmonary vascular morphology and densitometry on CTPA distinguish between pulmonary embolism and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension?
Cohort (n=37)
Can automated quantification of pulmonary vascular morphology and densitometry on CTPA distinguish between pulmonary embolism and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension?
Automated densitometry on CTPA, specifically the aorta-pulmonary trunk density gradient, may help distinguish between acute PE and CTEPH, whereas vascular morphology does not.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May aid distinction of acute PE from CTEPH on CTPA; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
The shape and distribution of vascular lesions in pulmonary embolism (PE) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) are different. We investigated whether automated quantification of pulmonary vascular morphology and densitometry in arteries and veins imaged by computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) could distinguish PE from CTEPH. We analyzed CTPA images from a cohort of 16 PE patients, 6 CTEPH patients, and 15 controls. Pulmonary vessels were extracted with a graph‐cut method, and separated into arteries and veins using deep‐learning classification. Vascular morphology was quantified by the slope (α) and intercept (β) of the vessel radii distribution. To quantify lung perfusion defects, the median pulmonary vascular density was calculated. By combining these measurements with densities measured in parenchymal areas, pulmonary trunk, and descending aorta, a static perfusion curve was constructed. All separate quantifications were compared between the three groups. No vascular morphology differences were detected in contrast to vascular density values. The median vascular density (interquartile range) was −567 (113), −452 (95), and −470 (323) HU, for the control, PE, and CTEPH group. The static perfusion curves showed different patterns between groups, with a statistically significant difference in aorta‐pulmonary trunk gradient between the PE and CTEPH groups (p = 0.008). In this proof of concept study, not vasculature morphology but densities differentiated between patients of three groups. Further technical improvements are needed to allow for accurate differentiation between PE and CTEPH, which in this study was only possible statistically by measuring the density gradient between aorta and pulmonary trunk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhai et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Pulmonary embolism and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (n=37). Automated quantification of pulmonary vascular morphology and densitometry via CTPA vs. Controls and between disease groups was evaluated on Differentiation between PE and CTEPH using vascular morphology and densitometry (p=0.008). Automated quantification of CTPA images differentiated pulmonary embolism from chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension using the density gradient between the aorta and pulmonary trunk (p=0.008).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: