English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether Dual Energy CT (DECT) can be used as a diagnostic tool to assess the severity of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) by correlating parenchymal perfusion defect volume, obstruction score and right ventricular-to-left ventricular (RV/LV) diameter ratio using CT angiography (CTA) and DECT perfusion imaging. A total of 43 patients who underwent CTA and DECT perfusion imaging with clinical suspicion of acute PE were retrospectively included in the study. In total, 25 of these patients had acute PE findings on CTA. DECT assessed perfusion defect volume (PDvol) were automatically and semiautomatically quantified. Overall, two CTA methods for risk assessment in patients with acute PE were assessed: the RV/LV diameter ratio and the Modified Miller obstruction score. Automatic PDvol had a weak correlation ( r = 0.47, p = 0.02) and semiautomatic PDvol ( r = 0.68, p &lt; 0.001) had a moderate correlation to obstruction score in patients with confirmed acute PE, while only semiautomatic PDvol ( r = 0.43, p = 0.03) had a weak correlation with the RV/LV diameter ratio. Our data indicate that PDvol assessed by DECT software technique may be a helpful tool to assess the severity of acute PE when compared to obstruction score and RV/LV diameter ratio.

Acute Pulmonary Embolism Severity Assessment Evaluated with Dual Energy CT Perfusion Compared to Conventional CT Angiographic Measurements