The diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) is usually established by a combination of clinical assessment, D-dimer testing, and imaging with either pulmonary ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy or pulmonary multidetector CT (MDCT) angiography. Both V/Q SPECT and MDCT angiography seem to have high diagnostic accuracy. However, only limited data directly comparing these 2 modalities are available. Hybrid g-camera/MDCT systems have been introduced and allow simultaneous 3-dimensional lung V/Q SPECT and MDCT angiography, suitable for diagnosing PE. The aim of our study was to compare, in a prospective design, the diagnostic ability of V/Q SPECT, V/Q SPECT combined with low-dose CT, and pulmonary MDCT angiography obtained simultaneously using a combined SPECT/MDCT scanner in patients suspected of having PE. Methods: Consecutive patients from June 2006 to February 2008 suspected of having acute PE were referred to the Department of Nuclear Medicine at Rigshospitalet or Frederiksberg Hospital, Denmark, for V/Q SPECT as a first-line imaging procedure. The number of eligible patients was 196. Patients with positive D-dimer results (.0.5 mmol/mL) or a clinical assessment with a Wells score greater than 2 were included and underwent V/Q SPECT, lowdose CT, and pulmonary MDCT angiography in a single session. Patient follow-up was 6 mo. Results: A total of 81 simultaneous studies were available for analysis, of which 38% were from patients with PE. V/Q SPECT had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 88%. When low-dose CT was added, the sensitivity was still 97% and the specificity increased to 100%. Perfusion SPECT with low-dose CT had a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 51%. MDCT angiography alone had a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 100%. Conclusion: We conclude that V/Q SPECT in combination with low-dose CT without contrast enhancement has an excellent diagnostic performance and should therefore probably be considered first-line imaging in the workup of PE in most cases.
We observed a marked decrease in quadriceps volume within the first week of intensive care for septic shock. This loss of muscle mass was unaffected by transcutaneous electrical muscle stimulation applied for 60 mins per day for 7 days.
We wanted to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG) decreases disease activity on MRI in relapsing MS. Previous trials of IVIG in relapsing-remitting MS demonstrated a reduction of acute relapses, but these studies did not include MRI. We treated 26 patients in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study of IVIG 1 g/kg daily or placebo on 2 consecutive days every month during two 6-month treatment periods. The primary end point was the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions on monthly serial MRI. Secondary efficacy variables were the occurrence of exacerbations, clinical neurologic ratings, total MS lesion load on T2-weighted MRI, and multimodal evoked potentials. Eighteen patients completed the entire trial; eight patients did not. Twenty-one patients completed the first treatment period and at least two MRI examinations in the second treatment period and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. On serial MRI, we observed fewer enhancing lesions per patient per scan during IVIG treatment (median, 0.4; range, 0 to 9.3) than during placebo treatment (median, 1.3; range, 0.2 to 25.7; p = 0.03). During IVIG treatment, 15 patients were exacerbation free compared with only 7 on placebo (p = 0.02). The total number of exacerbations in the IVIG period was 11 and in the placebo period, 19 (not significant). None of the remaining secondary efficacy measures were significantly different between the two treatment periods. The number of adverse events, in particular eczema, was significantly higher during IVIG therapy than during placebo treatment. These results suggest that IVIG treatment is beneficial to patients with relapsing MS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.