Mark L Schiebler1, Jitesh Ahuja2, Michael D Repplinger3, Christopher J François4, Karl K Vigen4, Thomas M Grist5, Azita G Hamedani6, Scott B Reeder7, Scott K Nagle8. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States. Electronic address: mschiebler@uwhealth.org. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States. 8. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of actionable findings on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) scans performed for the primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a HIPAA-compliant and IRB-approved single center, retrospective study of consecutive series of patients evaluated with contrast-enhanced MRA for PE. The final radiology report of each MRA was reviewed. All technically adequate negative exams were included in the analysis. The findings were divided into three types: those requiring further action (actionable-Type 1) those not requiring follow-up (non-actionable-Type 2) and normal exams. We compared our results with the literature regarding the use of computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in this scenario using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: 580 MRA scans for PE were performed. There were 561/580 (97%) technically adequate exams. Of these, 514/580 (89%) were negative and 47/580 (8%) were positive for PE. In the PE negative group of 514 exams, Type 1 findings were identified in 85/514 (17%), 188/514 (36%) cases were Type 2 and 241/514 (47.0%) were Type 3. There was no significant difference between the incidence of Type 1 and the combination of Type 2 and Type 3 findings on MRA and the reported incidence of actionable findings derived from CTA negative exams for PE (p<0.5). CONCLUSION: MRA as a first-line test for PE can identify actionable findings in those patients without PE, with an incidence similar to that reported in the literature for CTA.
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of actionable findings on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) scans performed for the primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a HIPAA-compliant and IRB-approved single center, retrospective study of consecutive series of patients evaluated with contrast-enhanced MRA for PE. The final radiology report of each MRA was reviewed. All technically adequate negative exams were included in the analysis. The findings were divided into three types: those requiring further action (actionable-Type 1) those not requiring follow-up (non-actionable-Type 2) and normal exams. We compared our results with the literature regarding the use of computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in this scenario using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: 580 MRA scans for PE were performed. There were 561/580 (97%) technically adequate exams. Of these, 514/580 (89%) were negative and 47/580 (8%) were positive for PE. In the PE negative group of 514 exams, Type 1 findings were identified in 85/514 (17%), 188/514 (36%) cases were Type 2 and 241/514 (47.0%) were Type 3. There was no significant difference between the incidence of Type 1 and the combination of Type 2 and Type 3 findings on MRA and the reported incidence of actionable findings derived from CTA negative exams for PE (p<0.5). CONCLUSION: MRA as a first-line test for PE can identify actionable findings in those patients without PE, with an incidence similar to that reported in the literature for CTA.
Authors: Clive Kearon; Elie A Akl; Anthony J Comerota; Paolo Prandoni; Henri Bounameaux; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael E Nelson; Philip S Wells; Michael K Gould; Francesco Dentali; Mark Crowther; Susan R Kahn Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Martine Remy-Jardin; Massimo Pistolesi; Lawrence R Goodman; Warren B Gefter; Alexander Gottschalk; John R Mayo; H Dirk Sostman Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paul D Stein; Fadi Matta; Jacob A Sedrick; Tarek Saleh; Aaref Badshah; James E Denier Journal: Clin Appl Thromb Hemost Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 2.389
Authors: Peter Bannas; Laura C Bell; Kevin M Johnson; Mark L Schiebler; Christopher J François; Utaroh Motosugi; Daniel Consigny; Scott B Reeder; Scott K Nagle Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M J L van Strijen; J L Bloem; W de Monyé; G J Kieft; P M T Pattynama; A van den Berg-Huijsmans; M V Huisman Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Helen T Winer-Muram; Jonas Rydberg; Matthew S Johnson; Robert D Tarver; Mark D Williams; Himanshu Shah; Jan Namyslowski; Dewey Conces; S Gregory Jennings; Jun Ying; Scott O Trerotola; Kenyon K Kopecky Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M L Schiebler; G A Holland; H Hatabu; J Listerud; T Foo; H Palevsky; H Edmunds; W B Gefter Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Luis Torres; Jeff Kammerman; Andrew D Hahn; Wei Zha; Scott K Nagle; Kevin Johnson; Nathan Sandbo; Keith Meyer; Mark Schiebler; Sean B Fain Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Michael D Repplinger; Rebecca L Bracken; Brian W Patterson; Manish N Shah; Michael S Pulia; John B Harringa; Mark L Schiebler; Scott K Nagle Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Michael D Repplinger; Scott K Nagle; John B Harringa; Aimee T Broman; Christopher R Lindholm; Christopher J François; Thomas M Grist; Scott B Reeder; Mark L Schiebler Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2018-05-10
Authors: Nanae Tsuchiya; Edwin Jr van Beek; Yoshiharu Ohno; Hiroto Hatabu; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Andrew Swift; Jens Vogel-Claussen; Jürgen Biederer; James Wild; Mark O Wielpütz; Mark L Schiebler Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2018-06-28