Mansi Verma1, Niraj Nirmal Pandey1, Vishwajeet Singh2, Priya Jagia3. 1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Department of Cardiovascular Radiology and Endovascular Interventions, New Delhi, 110029, India. 2. Department of Geriatric Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India. 3. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Department of Cardiovascular Radiology and Endovascular Interventions, New Delhi, 110029, India. drpjagia@yahoo.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate by meta-analysis the diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast quiescent-interval-single-shot (QISS) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) as reference standard. METHODS: This study was performed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus was done for studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of QISS in PAD published up to 31 May 2021. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of QISS were calculated on a per-segment basis for the entire arterial tree. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 459 patients were found eligible for the meta-analysis. There was significant heterogeneity among studies as depicted by chi-square test (p = 0.02) and moderate heterogeneity by I2 statistic (I2: 69 [95% CI: 30-100]). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of QISS on a per-segment basis with DSA/CE-MRA as reference standard was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) respectively. The area under hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic reflected a high accuracy of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98). There was a low likelihood of publication bias as indicated by Deeks' funnel plot. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis has consolidated the evidence that QISS has high accuracy for identifying as well as excluding arterial stenosis/occlusions in patients with symptoms of PAD. It can thus be considered the test of choice in patients with renal failure and in "at-risk patients" including pregnant women and patients with contrast allergy. KEY POINTS: • The pooled sensitivity and specificity of QISS magnetic resonance angiography on a per-segment basis with DSA or contrast-enhanced MRA as reference standard are 88% and 94% respectively. • The diagnostic accuracy of QISS in patients with peripheral arterial disease as reflected by area under hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic is high (0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98)). • There is moderate to significant heterogeneity among studies as depicted by I2 statistic and chi-square test.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate by meta-analysis the diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast quiescent-interval-single-shot (QISS) magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) as reference standard. METHODS: This study was performed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus was done for studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of QISS in PAD published up to 31 May 2021. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of QISS were calculated on a per-segment basis for the entire arterial tree. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 459 patients were found eligible for the meta-analysis. There was significant heterogeneity among studies as depicted by chi-square test (p = 0.02) and moderate heterogeneity by I2 statistic (I2: 69 [95% CI: 30-100]). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of QISS on a per-segment basis with DSA/CE-MRA as reference standard was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) respectively. The area under hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic reflected a high accuracy of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98). There was a low likelihood of publication bias as indicated by Deeks' funnel plot. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis has consolidated the evidence that QISS has high accuracy for identifying as well as excluding arterial stenosis/occlusions in patients with symptoms of PAD. It can thus be considered the test of choice in patients with renal failure and in "at-risk patients" including pregnant women and patients with contrast allergy. KEY POINTS: • The pooled sensitivity and specificity of QISS magnetic resonance angiography on a per-segment basis with DSA or contrast-enhanced MRA as reference standard are 88% and 94% respectively. • The diagnostic accuracy of QISS in patients with peripheral arterial disease as reflected by area under hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic is high (0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98)). • There is moderate to significant heterogeneity among studies as depicted by I2 statistic and chi-square test.
Authors: Marie D Gerhard-Herman; Heather L Gornik; Coletta Barrett; Neal R Barshes; Matthew A Corriere; Douglas E Drachman; Lee A Fleisher; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Naomi M Hamburg; Scott Kinlay; Robert Lookstein; Sanjay Misra; Leila Mureebe; Jeffrey W Olin; Rajan A G Patel; Judith G Regensteiner; Andres Schanzer; Mehdi H Shishehbor; Kerry J Stewart; Diane Treat-Jacobson; M Eileen Walsh Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-11-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Salvador Tranche-Iparraguirre; Rafael Marín-Iranzo; Rebeca Fernández-de Sanmamed; Alba Riesgo-García; Eduardo Hevia-Rodríguez; Juan B García-Casas Journal: Nefrologia Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 2.033
Authors: Robert R Edelman; John J Sheehan; Eugene Dunkle; Nancy Schindler; James Carr; Ioannis Koktzoglou Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-03-29