Page 197 - 2019_01-Haematologica-web

CTPA versus V-Q lung scan in pregnant women
lung scanning. Our most important finding appears to be the very low rate of false negative test results for both imaging modalities, although the low disease prevalence among the studies prevents a solid evaluation of the sensi- tivity. Moreover, radiation doses associated with CTPA and V-Q lung scanning are well below the safety threshold.
Depending on new developments and insights of pending studies, decisions regarding the imaging modality of choice should be based on local availability of techniques com- bined with use of optimal scan protocols tailored to the pregnant patient.
References
1. Guimicheva B, Czuprynska J, Arya R. The prevention of pregnancy-related venous thromboembolism. Br J Haematol. 2015;168(2):163-174.
2. Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systemat- ic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6): e323-333.
3. Tromeur C, van der Pol LM, Klok FA, Couturaud F, Huisman MV. Pitfalls in the diagnostic management of pulmonary embolism in pregnancy. Thromb Res. 2017;151 (Suppl 1):S86-S91.
4. Huisman MV, Klok FA. How I diagnose acute pulmonary embolism. Blood. 2013;121(22):4443-4448.
5. Van der Pol LM, Mairuhu AT, Tromeur C, Couturaud F, Huisman MV, Klok FA. Use of clinical prediction rules and D-dimer tests in the diagnostic management of pregnant patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism. Blood Rev. 2017;31(2):31-36.
6. CahillAG,StoutMJ,MaconesGA,BhallaS. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in preg- nancy using computed-tomographic angiog- raphy or ventilation-perfusion. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(1):124-129.
7. Chan WS, Ray JG, Murray S, Coady GE, Coates G, Ginsberg JS. Suspected pul- monary embolism in pregnancy: clinical presentation, results of lung scanning, and subsequent maternal and pediatric out- comes. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(10):1170- 1175.
8. PRISMA. The PRISMA statement http://www.prisma-statement.org/state- ment.htm. [cited Aug, 2015)].
9. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7 (3):177-188.
10. HigginsJP,ThompsonSG,DeeksJJ,Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta- analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560.
11. Abujudeh HH, Kaewlai R, Farsad K, Orr E, Gilman M, Shepard JA. Computed tomogra- phy pulmonary angiography: an assessment of the radiology report. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(11):1309-1315.
12. Andreou AK, Curtin JJ, Wilde S, Clark A. Does pregnancy affect vascular enhance- ment in patients undergoing CT pulmonary angiography? Eur Radiol. 2008;18(12):2716- 2722.
13. AnguloVJ,RamirezGA,TorresGomezLG, Vargas GA, Cortes SL. [Pulmonary throm- boembolism in obstetrics]. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2004;72:400-406.
14. Balan KK, Critchley M, Vedavathy KK, Smith ML, Vinjamuri S. The value of venti- lation-perfusion imaging in pregnancy. Br J Radiol. 1997;70(832):338-340.
15. Bourjeily G, Khalil H, Raker C, et al. Outcomes of negative multidetector com- puted tomography with pulmonary angio-
graphy in pregnant women suspected of pulmonary embolism. Lung. 2012;190(1): 105-111.
16. Browne AM, Cronin CG, NiMhuircheartaigh J, et al. Evaluation of imaging quality of pulmonary 64-MDCT angiography in pregnancy and puerperium. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(1):60-64.
17. Cutts BA, Tran HA, Merriman E, et al. The utility of the Wells clinical prediction model and ventilation-perfusion scanning for pul- monary embolism diagnosis in pregnancy. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2014;25(4):375- 378.
18. Jordan EJ, Godelman A, Levsky JM, Zalta B, Haramati LB. CT pulmonary angiography in pregnant and postpartum women: low yield, high dose. Clin Imaging. 2015;39(2): 251-253.
19. King-Im JM, Freeman SJ, Boylan T, Cheow HK. Quality of CT pulmonary angiography for suspected pulmonary embolus in preg- nancy. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(12):2709-2715.
20. Litmanovich D, Boiselle PM, Bankier AA, Kataoka ML, Pianykh O, Raptopoulos V. Dose reduction in computed tomographic angiography of pregnant patients with sus- pected acute pulmonary embolism. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(6):961-966.
28. Astani SA, Davis LC, Harkness BA, Supanich MP, Dalal I. Detection of pul- monary embolism during pregnancy: com- paring radiation doses of CTPA and pul- monary scintigraphy. Nucl Med Commun. 2014;35(7):704-711.
29. Bajc M, Olsson B, Gottsater A, Hindorf C, Jogi J. V/P SPECT as a diagnostic tool for pregnant women with suspected pulmonary embolism. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(8):1325-1330.
30. Gruning T, Mingo RE, Gosling MG, et al. Diagnosing venous thromboembolism in pregnancy. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1062): 20160021.
31. Hamilton EJ, Green AQ, Cook JA, Nash H. Investigating for pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: five year retrospective review of referrals to the acute medical unit of a large teaching hospital. Acute Med. 2016;15(2): 58-62.
32. Ramsay R, Byrd L, Tower C, James J, Prescott M, Thachil J. The problem of pul- monary embolism diagnosis in pregnancy. Br J Haematol. 2015;170(5):727-728.
33. Revel MP, Cohen S, Sanchez O, et al. Pulmonary embolism during pregnancy: diagnosis with lung scintigraphy or CT angiography? Radiology. 2011;258(2):590-
21. Moradi M, Monfared LJ. Qualitative evalua- 598.
tion of pulmonary CT angiography findings in pregnant and postpartum women with suspected pulmonary thromboembolism. J Res Med Sci. 2015;20(11):1088-1093.
22. Moriarty JM, Bolster F, O'Connor C, et al. Frequency of nonthromboembolic imaging abnormalities in pregnant women referred for computed tomography pulmonary arte- riography. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2015; 66(1):24-29.
23. Ridge CA, McDermott S, Freyne BJ, Brennan DJ, Collins CD, Skehan SJ. Pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: comparison of pul- monary CT angiography and lung scintigra- phy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(5): 1223-1227.
24. Ridge CA, Mhuircheartaigh JN, Dodd JD, Skehan SJ. Pulmonary CT angiography pro- tocol adapted to the hemodynamic effects of pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(5):1058-1063.
25. Sellem A, Elajmi W, Mahjoub Y, Hammami H. Diagnosis pulmonary embolism in preg- nancy: contribution of lung scintigraphy. Retrospective study about 116 cases. MED NUCL. 2013;37(10-11):432-438.
26. Shahir K, McCrea JM, Lozano LA, Goodman LR. Reduced z-axis technique for CT pulmonary angiography in pregnancy-- validation for practical use and dose reduc- tion. Emerg Radiol. 2015;22(6):651-656.
27. Abele JT, Sunner P. The clinical utility of a diagnostic imaging algorithm incorporating low-dose perfusion scans in the evaluation of pregnant patients with clinically suspect- ed pulmonary embolism. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(1):29-32.
34. Richard MC, Lambert R, Rey E, Turpin S. Is perfusion scintigraphy sufficient in pregnant or post-partum women? Med Nucl. 2015;39(6):479-485.
35. Scarsbrook AF, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Perfusion scintigraphy: diagnostic utility in pregnant women with suspected pulmonary embolic disease. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(10): 2554-2560.
36. Scott K, Rutherford N, Fagermo N, Lust K. Use of imaging for investigation of suspect- ed pulmonary embolism during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Med. 2011;4(1):20-23.
37. Shahir K, Goodman LR, Tali A, Thorsen KM, Hellman RS. Pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: CT pulmonary angiography ver- sus perfusion scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):W214-W220.
38. Bowlen L, Hofman M, Santos P. A retrospec- tive review of lung ventilation and perfusion (V/Q) scanning in pregnant women. Intern Med J. 2011;Conference:41.
39. Butt N, Coffey J, Hill JC. Pulmonary embolism imaging in pregnancy - a 3 year retrospective review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;Conference: S401.
40. Edwards R. Imaging techniques for pregnant patients for suspected PE-a retrospective review. Inter Med J. 2012;Conference:18-19.
41. Hufton A, Albert P, Phitidis ME, Kwok A, Duffy N. Investigating suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnancy - review of practice at Aintree University Hospital. Eur Respir J. 2015;(1):52.
42. Hullah P, Harris B, Hibbert M. A case review study of investigating for pulmonary
haematologica | 2019; 104(1)
187