| Literature DB >> 27273375 |
Sven Nyrén1,2, Anna Nordgren Rogberg2,3, Roberto Vargas Paris2,3, Bonnie Bengtsson4, Eli Westerlund4,5, Peter Lindholm2,3.
Abstract
Background Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a severe medical condition with non-specific clinical findings. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) using iodinated contrast agents is the golden standard for diagnosis, but many patients have contraindications for CTA. Purpose To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of repeated acquisitions of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), without respiratory gating or breath holding, in diagnosing PE using CTA as the reference standard. Material and Methods Thirty-three patients with clinically suspected PE underwent MRI within 48 h after diagnostic CTA. A control group of 37 healthy participants underwent MRI and was matched with an equal number of negative CTA exams. The MRI protocol was based on free-breathing steady-state free precession producing 4.5 mm slices in axial, sagittal, and coronal planes. Instead of respiratory or cardiac gating five repetitive slices were obtained in each anatomical position to compensate for movement and artifacts. Clinical assessment including d-dimer and Well's score was performed prior to imaging. One radiologist reviewed the CTA exams and two radiologists reviewed the MRI scans. Results All 70 MRI exams were of diagnostic quality and the total acquisition time for each MRI scan was 9 min 34 s. On CTA, 29 patients were diagnosed with PE and the MRI readers detected 26 and 27 of those, respectively. Specificity was 100% for both readers. Sensitivity was 90% and 93%, respectively. Inter-reader agreement using Cohen's kappa was 0.97. Conclusion Our unenhanced MRI protocol shows a high sensitivity and specificity for PE, but further studies are required before considering it as a safe diagnostic test.Entities:
Keywords: Pulmonary embolism; lung; steady-state free precession (SSFP); thromboembolic
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27273375 DOI: 10.1177/0284185116651003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Radiol ISSN: 0284-1851 Impact factor: 1.990