Pulmonary embolism is a common and potentially lethal condition. Clinical signs and symptoms for pulmonary embolism are nonspecific. New and simple tests are therefore needed in order to help in early diagnosis of pul...Pulmonary embolism is a common and potentially lethal condition. Clinical signs and symptoms for pulmonary embolism are nonspecific. New and simple tests are therefore needed in order to help in early diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. The aim of this work is to elucidate the role of IMA in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Subjects and Methods: 75 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and 20 control healthy subjects were included in this study. Measurement of IMA was done in all subjects. Results: The mean values of IMA were statistically significantly higher among the PE patient group (0.43 ± 0.104 ABSU) in comparison with non PE patient group (0.27 ± 0.053 ABSU) and healthy control subjects (0.21 ± 0.080 ABSU). At cut-off value of 0.305 ABSU, IMA had 97.5% sensitivity and 71.42% specificity. The area under the curve was 0.952. The positive predictive value of this cut-off value was 79.59% while the negative predictive value was 96.15%. Conclusions: IMA is a good alternative to D-dimer in the diagnosis and exclusion of PE. Larger studies are needed to augment our results.展开更多
文摘Pulmonary embolism is a common and potentially lethal condition. Clinical signs and symptoms for pulmonary embolism are nonspecific. New and simple tests are therefore needed in order to help in early diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. The aim of this work is to elucidate the role of IMA in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Subjects and Methods: 75 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and 20 control healthy subjects were included in this study. Measurement of IMA was done in all subjects. Results: The mean values of IMA were statistically significantly higher among the PE patient group (0.43 ± 0.104 ABSU) in comparison with non PE patient group (0.27 ± 0.053 ABSU) and healthy control subjects (0.21 ± 0.080 ABSU). At cut-off value of 0.305 ABSU, IMA had 97.5% sensitivity and 71.42% specificity. The area under the curve was 0.952. The positive predictive value of this cut-off value was 79.59% while the negative predictive value was 96.15%. Conclusions: IMA is a good alternative to D-dimer in the diagnosis and exclusion of PE. Larger studies are needed to augment our results.
