Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Sensitivity and Specificity of Ventilation-Perfusion Scintigraphy in PIOPED II Study

Purpose: To use Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED) II data to retrospectively determine sensitivity and specificity of ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphic studies categorized as pulmonary embolism (PE) present or PE absent and the proportion of patients for whom these categories applied.

Materials and Methods: The PIOPED II study had institutional review board approval at all participating centers. Patient informed consent was obtained; the study was HIPAA compliant. Approval and consent included those for future retrospective research. Patients in the PIOPED II database of clinical and imaging results were included if they had diagnosis at computed tomographic (CT) angiography, Wells score, and diagnosis at V/Q scanning. V/Q scan central readings were recategorized as PE present (PIOPED II reading = high probability of PE), PE absent (PIOPED II reading = very low probability of PE or normal), or nondiagnostic (PIOPED II reading = low or intermediate probability of PE). A composite reference standard was used: the PIOPED II digital subtraction angiographic (DSA) result, or if there was no definitive DSA result, CT angiographic results that were concordant with the Wells score (ie, positive CT angiographic result and Wells score > 2 or negative CT angiographic result and Wells score < 6). Sensitivity and specificity of recategorized central readings were computed.

Results: With the exclusion of patients with intermediate or low probability, the sensitivity of a high probability (PE present) scan finding was 77.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69.7%, 85.0%), while the specificity of very low probability or normal (PE absent) scan finding was 97.7% (95% CI: 96.4%, 98.9%). The percentage of patients with a PE present or PE absent scan finding was 73.5% (95% CI: 70.7%, 76.4%).

Conclusion: In a population similar to that in PIOPED II, results of V/Q scintigraphy can be diagnostically definitive in a majority of patients; thus, it can be considered an appropriate pulmonary imaging procedure in patients for whom CT angiography may be disadvantageous.

© RSNA, 2008


  • 1 Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Contrast enhanced multidetector spiral CT of the chest and lower extremities in suspected acute pulmonary embolism: results of the Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II (PIOPED II). N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2317–2327. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding PE at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected PE presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and D-dimer. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:98–107. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism: results of the Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED). The PIOPED Investigators. JAMA 1990;263:2753–2759. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Stein PD, Kayali F, Olson RE. Trends in the use of diagnostic imaging in patients hospitalized with acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol 2004;93:1316–1317. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Stein PD, Woodard PK, Weg JG, et al. Diagnostic pathways in acute pulmonary embolism: recommendations of the PIOPED II investigators. Am J Med 2006;119:1048–1055. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sostman HD, Coleman RE, Newman GE, DeLong D, Paine SS. Evaluation of revised criteria for ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Radiology 1994;193:103–107. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stein PD, Gottschalk A. Review of criteria appropriate for a very low probability of pulmonary embolism on ventilation-perfusion lung scans: a position paper. RadioGraphics 2000;20:99–105. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Miniati M, Pistolesi M, Marini C, et al. Value of perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: results of the Prospective Investigative Study of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PISA-PED). Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;154:1387–1393. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984; 378–379. Google Scholar
  • 10 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 2003;226:24–28. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gottschalk A, Sostman HD, Coleman RE, et al. Ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy in the PIOPED study: evaluation of scintigraphic criteria and interpretations. J Nucl Med 1993;34:1119–1126. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Stein PD, Henry JW, Gottschalk A. Mismatched vascular defects. Chest 1993;104:1468–1472. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stein PD, Terrin ML, Gottschalk A, Alavi A, Henry JW. Value of ventilation/perfusion scans versus perfusion scans alone in acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol 1992;69:1239–1241. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stein PD, Henry JW, Gottschalk A. Small perfusion defects in suspected pulmonary embolism. J Nucl Med 1996;37:1313–1316. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gottschalk A, Stein PD, Henry JW, Relyea B. Matched ventilation, perfusion and chest radiographic abnormalities in acute pulmonary embolism. J Nucl Med 1996;37:1636–1638. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Goldberg SN, Richardson DD, Palmer EL, Scott JA. Pleural effusion and ventilation/perfusion scan interpretation for acute pulmonary embolus. J Nucl Med 1996;37:1310–1313. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Perrier A, Howarth N, Didier D, et al. Performance of helical computed tomography in unselected outpatients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Int Med 2001;135:88–97. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O, et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1760–1768. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV, et al. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA 2006;295:172–179. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 van Strijen MJ, de Monye W, Schiereck J, et al. Single-detector helical computed tomography as the primary diagnostic test in suspected pulmonary embolism: a multicenter clinical management study of 510 patients. Ann Int Med 2003;138:307–314. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Revel MP, Petrover D, Hernigou A, Lefort C, Meyer G, Frija G. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism with four-detector row helical CT: prospective evaluation of 216 outpatients and inpatients. Radiology 2005;234:265–273. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kelly AM, Patel S, Carlos RC, Cronin P, Kazerooni EA. Multidetector row CT pulmonary angiography and indirect venography for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolic disease in intensive care unit patients. Acad Radiol 2006;13:486–495. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Worsley DF, Alavi A, Palevsky HI, Kundel HL. Comparison of diagnostic performance with ventilation-perfusion lung imaging in different patient populations. Radiology 1996;199:481–483. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jones SE, Wittram C. The indeterminate CT pulmonary angiogram: imaging characteristics and patient clinical outcome. Radiology 2005;237:329–337. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Collart JP, Roelants V, Vanpee D, et al. Is a lung perfusion scan obtained by using single photon emission computed tomography able to improve the radionuclide diagnosis of pulmonary embolism? Nucl Med Commun 2002;23:1107–1113. Google Scholar
  • 26 Coche EE, Muller NL, Kim KI, Wiggs BR, Mayo JR. Acute pulmonary embolism: ancillary findings at spiral CT. Radiology 1998;207:753–758. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Shah AA, Davis SD, Gamsu G, Intriere L. Parenchymal and pleural findings in patients with and patients without acute pulmonary embolism detected at spiral CT. Radiology 1999;211:147–153. LinkGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2008