Wei Lu1, Jun Zheng1, Xu-Dong Pan1, Ming-Duo Zhang1, Tie-Yuan Zhu1, Bin Li1, Li-Zhong Sun1. 1. 1 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing 100029, China ; 2 Department of Cardiology, 3 Department of Pediatric Heart Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have addressed the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess acute cardiac allograft rejection (ACAR) compared with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). But the methodological heterogeneity limited the clinical application of CMR. Accordingly, we have sought a comprehensive, systematic literature review and meta-analysis for the purpose. METHODS: Studies prior to September 1, 2014 identified by Medline/PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrance search and citation tracking were examined by two independent reviewers. A study was included if a CMR was used as a diagnostic test for the detection of ACAR. RESULTS: Of the seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Only four studies using T2 relaxation time as a CMR parameter could be pooled results, because the number of studies using other parameters was less than three. By using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, meta-analysis demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 79% to 97%], a pooled specificity of 83% (95% CI, 78% to 88%), and a pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 61.66 (95% CI, 18.09 to 210.10). CONCLUSIONS: CMR seems to have a high sensitivity and moderate specificity in the diagnosis of ACAR. However, as a result of CMR for diagnostic ACAR should be comprehensively considered by physicians and imaging experts in the context of clinical presentations and imaging feature. Further investigations are still required to test different parameters and study condition.
BACKGROUND: Several studies have addressed the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess acute cardiac allograft rejection (ACAR) compared with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). But the methodological heterogeneity limited the clinical application of CMR. Accordingly, we have sought a comprehensive, systematic literature review and meta-analysis for the purpose. METHODS: Studies prior to September 1, 2014 identified by Medline/PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrance search and citation tracking were examined by two independent reviewers. A study was included if a CMR was used as a diagnostic test for the detection of ACAR. RESULTS: Of the seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Only four studies using T2 relaxation time as a CMR parameter could be pooled results, because the number of studies using other parameters was less than three. By using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, meta-analysis demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 79% to 97%], a pooled specificity of 83% (95% CI, 78% to 88%), and a pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 61.66 (95% CI, 18.09 to 210.10). CONCLUSIONS: CMR seems to have a high sensitivity and moderate specificity in the diagnosis of ACAR. However, as a result of CMR for diagnostic ACAR should be comprehensively considered by physicians and imaging experts in the context of clinical presentations and imaging feature. Further investigations are still required to test different parameters and study condition.
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging; graft rejection; heart transplantation (HTX)
Authors: George R Sutherland; Giovanni Di Salvo; Piet Claus; Jan D'hooge; Bart Bijnens Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Susan Stewart; Gayle L Winters; Michael C Fishbein; Henry D Tazelaar; Jon Kobashigawa; Jacki Abrams; Claus B Andersen; Annalisa Angelini; Gerald J Berry; Margaret M Burke; Anthony J Demetris; Elizabeth Hammond; Silviu Itescu; Charles C Marboe; Bruce McManus; Elaine F Reed; Nancy L Reinsmoen; E Rene Rodriguez; Alan G Rose; Marlene Rose; Nicole Suciu-Focia; Adriana Zeevi; Margaret E Billingham Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Se Yong Jang; Yongkeun Cho; Joon Hyuck Song; Sang Soo Cheon; Sun Hee Park; Myung Hwan Bae; Jang Hoon Lee; Dong Heon Yang; Hun Sik Park; Shung Chull Chae Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Arun Damodaran; Todd Dardas; Audrey H Wu; David B S Dyke; Scott L Hummel; Jennifer A Cowger; Todd M Koelling Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: N P Hofmann; C Steuer; A Voss; C Erbel; S Celik; A Doesch; P Ehlermann; E Giannitsis; S J Buss; H A Katus; G Korosoglou Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Nazzareno Galiè; Marius M Hoeper; Marc Humbert; Adam Torbicki; Jean-Luc Vachiery; Joan Albert Barbera; Maurice Beghetti; Paul Corris; Sean Gaine; J Simon Gibbs; Miguel Angel Gomez-Sanchez; Guillaume Jondeau; Walter Klepetko; Christian Opitz; Andrew Peacock; Lewis Rubin; Michael Zellweger; Gerald Simonneau Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Otavio Rizzi Coelho-Filho; Ravi Shah; Carlos Fernando Ramos Lavagnoli; Jose Carlos Barros; Tomas G Neilan; Venkatesh L Murthy; Pedro Paulo Martins de Oliveira; Jose Roberto Matos Souza; Elaine Soraya Barbosa de Oliveira Severino; Karlos Alexandre de Souza Vilarinho; Lindemberg da Mota Silveira Filho; Jose Garcia; Marc J Semigran; Otavio Rizzi Coelho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Orlando Petrucci Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jonathan H Soslow; Justin Godown; David W Bearl; Kimberly Crum; James C Slaughter; Kristen George-Durrett; Kak-Chen Chan; Maryanne Chrisant; Debra Dodd; Lazaro Hernandez Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 8.589
Authors: Steven C Greenway; Frederic Dallaire; Paul F Kantor; Anne I Dipchand; Rajiv R Chaturvedi; Monali Warade; Eugenie Riesenkampff; Shi-Joon Yoo; Lars Grosse-Wortmann Journal: World J Transplant Date: 2016-12-24