Annals of Thoracic Medicine Official publication of the Saudi Thoracic Society, affiliated to King Saud University
 
Search Ahead of print Current Issue Archives Instructions Subscribe e-Alerts Login 
Home Email this article link Print this article Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 99-104

The role of thoracic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism


1 Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Dr. Lütfi Kirdar Kartal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
2 Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Arnavutköy State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
3 Department of Radiology, Kartal Kosuyolu Training and Research Hospital, Kartal, Istanbul, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Sevda Sener Comert
Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Pembe Kosk sok. Emek Apt. No: 16 D: 14 34732, Kadikoy, Istanbul
Turkey
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/1817-1737.109822

PMID: 23741272

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) is still a problem especially at emergency units. The purpose of study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic ultrasonography (TUS) in patients with PE. Methods: In this prospective study, 50 patients with suspected PE were evaluated in Department of Pulmonary Diseases of a Training and Reasearch Hospital between January 2010 and July 2011. At the begining, TUS was performed by a chest physician, subsequently for definitive diagnosis computed tomography pulmonary angiography were performed in all cases as a reference method. Other diagnostic procedures were examination of serum d-dimer levels, echocardiography, and venous doppler ultrasonography of the legs. Both chest physician and radiologist were blinded to the results of other diagnostic method. Diagnosis of PE was suggested if at least one typical pleural-based/subpleural wedge-shaped or round hypoechoic lesion with or without pleural effusion was reported by TUS. Presence of pure pleural effusion or normal sonographic findings were accepted as negative TUS for PE. Results: PE was diagnosed in 30 patients. It was shown that TUS was true positive in 27 patients and false positive in eight and true negative in 12 and false negative in three. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of TUS in diagnosis of PE for clinically suspected patients were 90%, 60%, 77.1%, 80%, and 78%, respectively. Conclusions: TUS with a high sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy, is a noninvasive, widely available, cost-effective method which can be rapidly performed. A negative TUS study cannot rule out PE with certainty, but positive TUS findings with moderate/high suspicion for PE may prove a valuable tool in diagnosis of PE at bedside especially at emergency setting, for critically ill and immobile patients, facilitating immediate treatment decision.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3905    
    Printed130    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded811    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal