ArticleCureus2024
Impact of COVID-19 on Ventilation-Perfusion (V/Q) Scans: A Comparative Analysis of Pre-COVID-19 Era V/Q Scans and Post-COVID-19 Era Perfusion Scans.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scans: trends from medicare part B (2013-2023).The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted medical practices, including nuclear medicine. To minimize aerosol transmission risks, lung perfusion scintigraphy was preferred over traditional ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy during the pandemic. This study compares lung perfusion scans performed during COVID-19 with V/Q scans from the pre-COVID era. After reviewing this study, the reader will learn about V/Q scintigraphy and lung perfusion. Methods This retrospective observational study, conducted from December 2018 to July 2021, involved 868 patients - 511 in the pre-COVID era and 357 in the post-COVID era - at a single tertiary care center. The pretest probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) was determined using Wells' criteria, and data including demographics, clinical findings, and diagnostic test results (V/Q or lung perfusion scintigraphy) were collected. Results A 30% decline in lung scans was observed during the pandemic. In the pre-COVID era, 68.3% of scans had low, 27.8% had intermediate, and 3.9% had high probability for PE. During the pandemic, perfusion-only scans showed 57.3% low, 32.9% indeterminate, and 9.8% high probability for PE. Among COVID-19-positive patients, 48.9% had intermediate, and 11.1% had high probability scans. The rise in indeterminate and high-probability scans during the pandemic is attributed to COVID-19-related lung changes and hypercoagulability. Conclusion The perfusion component of lung scans is typically sufficient for evaluating acute PE. Omitting the ventilation part of the V/Q scan had minimal impact, with only a 5.1% increase in indeterminate/non-diagnostic scans using perfusion-only modified Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II (PIOPED II) criteria during the post-COVID-19 era, likely due to underlying lung parenchymal involvement in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, there was a 5.9% rise in high-probability scans, attributed to the hypercoagulability and vascular complications associated with COVID-19.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.