Comparison of 4- and 64-slice CT scanning in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism

Summary

With the introduction of multi-detector row CT (MDCT), sensitivity to diagnose pulmonary embolism (PE) has greatly improved. The use of newer generation CT-scans may lead to a higher prevalence and a different distribution of PE. We compared 64-slice with 4-slice MDCT regarding prevalence and distribution of PE, the number of inconclusive test results and inter-reader variability. CT-scans from a random sample of 110 consecutive patients who underwent 4-slice CT-scanning were compared with 64-slice CT-scans from 107 patients from a second cohort. Three radiologists independently reassessed all CT-scans. Consensus was reached in case of disagreement between the readers. Final diagnosis of PE was categorised as central, segmental or subsegmental by the thrombus’ most proximal end. The prevalence of PE was 24% (26/110, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17–32%) and 22% (24/107, 16–31%) for the 4-slice and 64-slice cohort, respectively. The prevalence of isolated subsegmental emboli was 2/26 (7.7%; 2.1–24%) and 5/24 (21%; 9.2–41%), respectively (p=0.424). The number of inconclusive scans was 10% in both cohorts, mostly due to movement artefacts and suboptimal intravascular contrast, respectively. The inter-reader agreement between the three readers was 0.70 for the 4-slice scans and 0.68 for the 64-slice scans. Although absolute prevalence of PE was equal in both cohorts, there was a trend towards more subsegmental PE with 64-slice CT. In a multi-reader setting, the number of inconclusive examinations was higher than quoted for clinical management studies, indicating that the diagnosis of PE with MDCT could be less straightforward than assumed.

Keywords

Pulmonary embolism - venous thromboembolism - multi-detector row CT scan - diagnosis

• References

• 1 Rathbun SW, Raskob GE, Whitsett TL. Sensitivity and specificity of helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 227-232.
• 2 Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O. et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1760-1768.
• 3 Patel S, Kazerooni EA, Cascade PN. Pulmonary embolism: optimization of small pulmonary artery visualization at multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2003; 227: 455-460.
• 4 Ghaye B, Szapiro D, Mastora I. et al. Peripheral pulmonary arteries: how far in the lung does multi-detector row spiral CT allow analysis?. Radiology 2001; 219: 629-636.
• 5 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M. et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83: 416-420.
• 6 The Christopher study investigators. van Belle A, Buller HR. et al. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. J Am Med Assoc 2006; 295: 172-179.
• 7 Boyden E. Segmental anatomy of the lungs. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1955
• 8 Jackson CL, Huber JF. Correlated applied anatomy of the bronchial tree and lungs with a system of nomenclature. Chest 1943; 09: 319-326.
• 9 Thomeer MG, Pattynama PM, Hartmann IJ. et al. High incidence of isolated subsegmental pulmonary emboli on multi-slice spiral CT: a comparative clinical study. Thromb Haemost 2006; 95: 914-915.
• 10 Eyer BA, Goodman LR, Washington L. Clinicians’ response to radiologists’ reports of isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism or inconclusive interpretation of pulmonary embolism using MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 623-628.
• 11 Coche E, Verschuren F, Keyeux A. et al. Diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism in outpatients: comparison of thin-collimation multi-detector row spiral CT and planar ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy. Radiology 2003; 229: 757-765.
• 12 Nijkeuter M, Kwakkel-van Erp JM, Kruip MJ. et al. Incidence of diagnosis of subsegmental pulmonary emboli using multidetector row and single-detector row computed tomography. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 06: 384-386.
• 13 Goodman LR. Small pulmonary emboli: what do we know?. Radiology 2005; 234: 654-658.
• 14 Righini M, Le Gal G, Aujesky D. et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008; 371: 1343-1352.
• 15 Revel MP, Petrover D, Hernigou A. et al. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism with four-detector row helical CT: prospective evaluation of 216 outpatients and inpatients. Radiology 2005; 234: 265-273.
• 16 Brunot S, Corneloup O, Latrabe V. et al. Reproducibility of multi-detector spiral computed tomography in detection of sub-segmental acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 2057-2063.