Literature DB >> 31456328

Comparison of technical failure of MR elastography for measuring liver stiffness between gradient-recalled echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dong Wook Kim1, So Yeon Kim1, Hee Mang Yoon1, Kyung Won Kim1, Jae Ho Byun1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) using a gradient-recalled echo (GRE) or a recently available spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) sequence is a promising noninvasive method for measuring liver stiffness. However, it sometimes fails to measure stiffness values, thereby resulting in technical failures.
PURPOSE: To assess and compare technical failures of MRE for measuring liver stiffness between GRE and SE-EPI sequences. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta-analysis. POPULATION: Eight studies with both GRE and SE-EPI, 22 studies with only GRE, one study with only SE-EPI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Either 1.5 or 3T MRE using GRE and/or SE-EPI. ASSESSMENT: Through an Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE database search, original articles investigating the proportion of MRE technical failures in the measurement of liver stiffness published up until October 2018 were screened and selected. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The pooled proportions of technical failures under GRE and SE-EPI were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis of single proportions and inverse variance for calculating weights. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the covariates affecting heterogeneity. Head-to-head comparisons of technical failure between the sequences were conducted with eight MRE studies using both GRE and SE-EPI.
RESULTS: The pooled proportion of technical failure under GRE MRE was 5.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-7.4%), and a subgroup analysis showed higher technical failure rates at 3T than at 1.5T. The pooled proportion of technical failure under SE-EPI MRE was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.3-3.4%), without significant differences (P = 0.38-0.89) being observed in the subgroup analyses. In the eight studies comparing the two sequences, failure was more frequently observed with GRE than with SE-EPI (9.4% vs. 1.9%; P < 0.01). DATA
CONCLUSION: MRE conducted with SE-EPI sequences showed a lower technical failure rate than GRE sequences. With GRE sequences, a magnetic field of 3T was associated with higher technical failure rates than was 1.5T. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1086-1102.
© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  gradient-recalled echo; liver; magnetic resonance elastography; meta-analysis; spin-echo echo-planar imaging

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31456328     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26918

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  13 in total

Review 1.  MR elastography of liver: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Ilkay S Idilman; Jiahui Li; Meng Yin; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-07-23

Review 2.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Liver Fibrosis, Fat, and Iron.

Authors:  Christopher L Welle; Michael C Olson; Scott B Reeder; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 1.947

3.  Liver surface nodularity on non-contrast MRI identifies advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.

Authors:  Marco Dioguardi Burgio; Riccardo Sartoris; Aurélie Beaufrere; Jules Grégory; Boris Guiu; Chloé Guillot; Pierre-Emmanuel Rautou; Laurent Castera; Mohamed Bouattour; Valérie Paradis; Valérie Vilgrain; Maxime Ronot
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-09-17       Impact factor: 7.034

4.  Quality Control of Magnetic Resonance Elastography Using Percent Measurable Liver Volume Estimation.

Authors:  David H Ballard; Daniel R Ludwig; Tyler J Fraum; Amber Salter; Vamsi R Narra; Anup S Shetty
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 5.119

5.  Liver Fibrosis: Counterpoint-MR Elastography Is the Noninvasive Imaging Modality of Choice for Detecting and Staging Liver Fibrosis.

Authors:  Jiahui Li; Meng Yin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 6.582

Review 6.  Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging for chronic liver disease.

Authors:  Guilherme Moura Cunha; Patrick J Navin; Kathryn J Fowler; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 3.629

Review 7.  Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver: everything you need to know to get started.

Authors:  Kay M Pepin; Christopher L Welle; Flavius F Guglielmo; Jonathan R Dillman; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-11-01

8.  Magnetic resonance elastography to quantify liver disease severity in autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease.

Authors:  Erum A Hartung; Juan S Calle-Toro; Carolina Maya Lopera; Jessica Wen; Robert H Carson; Mohini Dutt; Kathryn Howarth; Susan L Furth; Kassa Darge; Suraj D Serai
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-08-05

Review 9.  Noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis: review of current quantitative CT and MRI-based techniques.

Authors:  Won Hyeong Im; Ji Soo Song; Weon Jang
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-07-06

10.  Using MR elastography to assess portal hypertension and response to beta-blockers in patients with cirrhosis.

Authors:  Karen Vagner Danielsen; Jens Dahlgaard Hove; Puria Nabilou; Meng Yin; Jun Chen; Mirabella Zhao; Thomas Kallemose; Ane Søgaard Teisner; Hartwig Roman Siebner; Richard L Ehman; Søren Møller; Flemming Bendtsen
Journal:  Liver Int       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 8.754

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.