abstract
- Inherent contradictions in current diagnostic recommendations for pulmonary embolism have created considerable confusion and controversy. To resolve these contradictions, we did a prospective study of ventilation-perfusion scanning, pulmonary angiography, and venography in consecutive patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism and abnormal perfusion scans. Ventilation scanning increased the probability of pulmonary embolism in patients with large perfusion defects and ventilation mismatch, but a ventilation-perfusion match was not helpful in ruling out pulmonary embolism. Small perfusion defects with mismatch had neither sufficiently high nor low probability to be of diagnostic value. The observed frequency of proximal vein thrombosis (19% to 51%) and its association with the range of ventilation-perfusion defects have important implications for management of pulmonary embolism. Pulmonary angiography is required in combination with venography in most patients with perfusion abnormalities because the probability of pulmonary embolism is neither sufficiently high nor low to confirm or exclude pulmonary embolism.