COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: comparison of pulmonary CT angiography and lung scintigraphy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare the diagnostic adequacy of lung scintigraphy with that of pulmonary CT angiography (CTA) in the care of pregnant patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient characteristics, radiology report content, additional imaging performed, final diagnosis, and diagnostic adequacy were recorded for pregnant patients consecutively referred for lung scintigraphy or pulmonary CTA according to physician preference. Measurements of pulmonary arterial enhancement were performed on all pulmonary CTA images of pregnant patients. Lung scintigraphy and pulmonary CTA studies deemed inadequate for diagnosis at the time of image acquisition were further assessed, and the cause of diagnostic inadequacy was determined. The relative contribution of the inferior vena cava to the right side of the heart was measured on nondiagnostic CTA images and compared with that on CTA images of age-matched nonpregnant women, who were the controls.

RESULTS: Twenty-eight pulmonary CTA examinations were performed on 25 pregnant patients, and 25 lung scintigraphic studies were performed on 25 pregnant patients. Lung scintigraphy was more frequently adequate for diagnosis than was pulmonary CTA (4% vs 35.7%) (p = 0.0058). Pulmonary CTA had a higher diagnostic inadequacy rate among pregnant than nonpregnant women (35.7% vs 2.1%) (p < 0.001). Transient interruption of contrast material by unopacified blood from the inferior vena cava was identified in eight of 10 nondiagnostic pulmonary CTA studies.

CONCLUSION: We found that lung scintigraphy was more reliable than pulmonary CTA in pregnant patients. Transient interruption of contrast material by unopacified blood from the inferior vena cava is a common finding at pulmonary CTA of pregnant patients.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app