We prospectively revised 53 V/QS-planar and V/QS-SPECT exams, performed according to the European Association of Nuclear Medicine guidelines. We evaluated the exams independently, by consensus of two Nuclear Medicine physicians. For both methods, we gave each lung a score expressing the dimension and extension of perfusion defects with normal ventilation. For each lung, we compared the scores with the paired Wilcoxon test, estimating the 95% confidence interval (95CI) for the respective difference.
We performed V/QS-SPECT exams without technical difficulties. The paired Wilcoxon test estimated the score difference to be −0.75 (95CI of −1.0 to −0.5;
The results demonstrate that V/QS-SPECT identifies a slightly larger number of perfusion defects than V/QS-planar, suggesting a higher sensitivity of this technique. However, more studies are necessary to evaluate the clinical meaning of this fact.
V/QS-SPECT demonstrates a higher capability to identify perfusion defects. This method looks promising, allowing for a greater role of this exam in pulmonary thromboembolism diagnosis and follow-up.