Comparison of computed tomography in relation to ventilation perfusion scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism

Abstract Introduction: Pulmonary embolism is still a challenge in diagnosis due to its variable and nonspecific symptoms. Computed tomography and ventilation/perfusion scanning are the modalities most commonly used in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, and both modalities have their advantages and disadvantages. One of the most important factors in the assessment and localization of pulmonary embolism is the diagnostic accuracy of these modalities, which serves to model different diagnostic strategies in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Material and methods: The research was conducted as a review of professional literature available in scientific research databases. A selection of 20 professional papers was made, based on which an analysis was conducted and a database was formed. Criteria for inclusion in the research were scientific research papers that report on the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic modalities of CT and V/P scanning as well as the results of diagnostic tests based on which the comparison of data from two modalities determined a diagnostically more accurate modality. Results: Sensitivity of 91.89% and specificity of 98.86% and diagnostic accuracy of 94.83% were determined in the case of computed tomography. Sensitivity of 90.58% and specificity of 98.33% and diagnostic accuracy of 96.43% were determined for the ventilation perfusion scanning method. We can conclude that the application of ventilation/perfusion scanning in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is a little more accurate compared to computed tomography. Conclusion: Ventilation/perfusion lung scanning will more accurately identify healthy individuals while on the other hand we can conclude that computed tomography is more accurate in diagnosing embolism in sick individuals. . Given that this difference between the two modalities is very small, the question is whether it is statistically significant at all. We can conclude that both diagnostic procedures have a high level of accuracy.