Hang Fu1, Xuedong Wang2, Kaiyue Diao3, Shan Huang3, Hui Liu1, Yue Gao3, Qin Zhao3, Zhi-Gang Yang4, Ying-Kun Guo5. 1. Department of Radiology, Key Laboratory of Obstetric & Gynecologic and Pediatric Diseases and Birth Defects of Ministry of Education, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, 20# Section 3 South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Obstetric & Gynecologic and Pediatric Diseases and Birth Defects of Ministry of Education, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. 3. Department of Radiology, National Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37# Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. 4. Department of Radiology, National Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37# Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. yangzg666@163.com. 5. Department of Radiology, Key Laboratory of Obstetric & Gynecologic and Pediatric Diseases and Birth Defects of Ministry of Education, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, 20# Section 3 South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. gykpanda@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Right ventricular function (RVF) is a strong predictor of adverse cardiac events; however, the reference standard for RVF assessment, MRI, is limited in some patients for whom accurate evaluation of RVF is essential, like those with COPD or non-MR compatible metal implants. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate whether CT was as accurate as MRI for the assessment of RVF. METHOD: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central searches to evaluate the differences and correlations between the following RVF parameters as measured by CT and MRI: end diastole volume (EDV), end systole volume (ESV), right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF), and stroke volume (SV). RESULTS: Sixteen studies that used disk summation (637 subjects) and three studies that used three-dimensional reconstruction were included. For the 16 studies, the pooled standard mean differences (95% confidence interval) were 1.04 (- 2.59, 4.67) for EDV, 1.22 (1.50, 3.95) for ESV, - 0.65 (- 2.60, 1.29) for RVEF, and - 0.37 (- 3.64, 2.90) for SV. The overall correlation coefficient (r) values were 0.98 for EDV, 0.95 for ESV, 0.98 for RVEF, and 0.97 for SV. The mean difference between the two methods was not statistically significant (overall effect Z test, p > 0.1). CONCLUSION: CT can assess RVF with accuracy comparable to that of MRI. Thus, CT is a valid alternative to MRI. KEY POINTS: • CT could help clinicians to assess RVF as accurately as MRI can, with satisfactory repeatability.
OBJECTIVE: Right ventricular function (RVF) is a strong predictor of adverse cardiac events; however, the reference standard for RVF assessment, MRI, is limited in some patients for whom accurate evaluation of RVF is essential, like those with COPD or non-MR compatible metal implants. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate whether CT was as accurate as MRI for the assessment of RVF. METHOD: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central searches to evaluate the differences and correlations between the following RVF parameters as measured by CT and MRI: end diastole volume (EDV), end systole volume (ESV), right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF), and stroke volume (SV). RESULTS: Sixteen studies that used disk summation (637 subjects) and three studies that used three-dimensional reconstruction were included. For the 16 studies, the pooled standard mean differences (95% confidence interval) were 1.04 (- 2.59, 4.67) for EDV, 1.22 (1.50, 3.95) for ESV, - 0.65 (- 2.60, 1.29) for RVEF, and - 0.37 (- 3.64, 2.90) for SV. The overall correlation coefficient (r) values were 0.98 for EDV, 0.95 for ESV, 0.98 for RVEF, and 0.97 for SV. The mean difference between the two methods was not statistically significant (overall effect Z test, p > 0.1). CONCLUSION: CT can assess RVF with accuracy comparable to that of MRI. Thus, CT is a valid alternative to MRI. KEY POINTS: • CT could help clinicians to assess RVF as accurately as MRI can, with satisfactory repeatability.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis; Right ventricular function
Authors: Richard A P Takx; Antonio Moscariello; U Joseph Schoepf; J Michael Barraza; John W Nance; Gorka Bastarrika; Marco Das; Mathias Meyer; Joachim E Wildberger; Stefan O Schoenberg; Christian Fink; Thomas Henzler Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: K Koch; F Oellig; K Oberholzer; P Bender; P Kunz; P Mildenberger; U Hake; K-F Kreitner; M Thelen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-11-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: P de Groote; A Millaire; C Foucher-Hossein; O Nugue; X Marchandise; G Ducloux; J M Lablanche Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 24.094