A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Pulmonary arteriovenous malformation (PAVM) reperfusion after percutaneous embolization: Sensitivity and specificity of non-enhanced CT. | LitMetric

Purpose: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of non-enhanced chest CT to detect reperfusion after pulmonary arteriovenous malformation (PAVM) embolization.

Materials And Methods: The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective HIPAA-compliant study and waived the need for patient consent. All consecutive patients who underwent PAVM embolization between January 2000 and April 2011 were included. Complex PAVMs and patients without available pre- and/or post-embolization CT were excluded. PAVM artery, aneurysm and vein diameters were measured on non-enhanced chest CT before and after PAVM embolization. Pulmonary angiography (PA) was the reference standard to assess PAVM reperfusion. Reperfusion detection was analyzed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves according to percentage of diameter reduction cut-off. Inter-observer concordance was ascertained with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs).

Results: Out of 68 patients with PAVM embolizations, 42 (62%) had 108 PAVMs that met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Areas under the ROC curves for PAVM reperfusion detection were 0.84, 0.87, and 0.78, respectively, for PAVM artery, aneurysm and vein (p>0.05). Sensitivity varied between 51% and 56%, and specificity between 86% and 98% for the <30% diameter reduction cut-off. Sensitivity was between 98% and 100%, and specificity, between 20% and 47% for the <70% diameter reduction cut-off. ICCs for inter-observer concordance were 0.58, 0.88 and 0.68 for percentage reduction of PAVM artery, aneurysm and vein, respectively.

Conclusion: PAVM diameter reduction cut-offs of <30% and <70%, to detect PAVM reperfusion on non-enhanced CT reported in the literature, would respectively result in low sensitivity and specificity.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.11.014DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pavm reperfusion
12
pavm
9
pulmonary arteriovenous
8
arteriovenous malformation
8
malformation pavm
8
sensitivity specificity
8
specificity non-enhanced
8
non-enhanced chest
8
pavm embolization
8
pavm artery
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!