Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the diagnostic performance of MR coronary angiography (MRCA) for coronary artery disease (CAD).
METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched on MEDLINE/EMBASE with the following inclusion criteria: 01/01/2000-03/23/2015 publication date; per-patient sensitivity/specificity for >50 % stenosis confirmed by conventional coronary angiography with raw data provided or retrievable; sample size >10. Quality was appraised using QUADAS2.
RESULTS: Nine hundred eighteen studies were retrieved, 24 of them, including 1,638 patients, were selected. Using a bivariate model, the pooled sensitivity was 89 % (95 % confidence interval 86-92 %), the pooled specificity 72 % (63-79 %). Meta-regression did not show a significant impact on sensitivity/specificity for both year of publication and disease prevalence (p ≥ 0.114). Sensitivity of contrast-enhanced examinations (95 %, 90-97 %) was higher (p = 0.005) than that of unenhanced examinations (87 %, 83-90 %). Specificity of whole-heart acquisition mode (78 %, 72-84 %) was higher (p = 0.006) than that of targeted mode (57 %, 45-69 %). Specificity at 3 T (83 %, 69-92 %) was higher (p = 0.067) than that at 1.5 T (68 %, 60-76 %). Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were low.
CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity of MRCA for CAD were 89 % and 72 %, respectively. A specificity higher than 80 % may be obtained at 3 T. Whole-heart contrast-enhanced protocols should be preferred for a higher diagnostic performance.
KEY POINTS: • MRCA sensitivity and specificity for CAD are below those of CTA. • Contrast administration increased sensitivity to 95 % (90-97 %), comparable with that of CTA. • Whole-heart mode increased specificity to 78 % (72-84 %), comparable with that of CTA. • Specificity at 3 T was borderline-significantly higher (p = 0.067) than at 1.5 T. • Whole-heart contrast-enhanced protocols are the best approach for MRCA.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 3706-18 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | European Radiology |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2016 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Contrast Media
- Coronary Angiography
- Coronary Artery Disease
- Coronary Stenosis
- Humans
- Magnetic Resonance Angiography
- Sensitivity and Specificity
- Journal Article
- Meta-Analysis
- Review
Cite this
Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography for detection of coronary artery disease : a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Di Leo, Giovanni; Fisci, Erica; Secchi, Francesco; Alì, Marco; Ambrogi, Federico; Sconfienza, Luca Maria; Sardanelli, Francesco.
In: European Radiology, Vol. 26, No. 10, 10.2016, p. 3706-18.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography for detection of coronary artery disease
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Di Leo, Giovanni
AU - Fisci, Erica
AU - Secchi, Francesco
AU - Alì, Marco
AU - Ambrogi, Federico
AU - Sconfienza, Luca Maria
AU - Sardanelli, Francesco
PY - 2016/10
Y1 - 2016/10
N2 - OBJECTIVES: To review the diagnostic performance of MR coronary angiography (MRCA) for coronary artery disease (CAD).METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched on MEDLINE/EMBASE with the following inclusion criteria: 01/01/2000-03/23/2015 publication date; per-patient sensitivity/specificity for >50 % stenosis confirmed by conventional coronary angiography with raw data provided or retrievable; sample size >10. Quality was appraised using QUADAS2.RESULTS: Nine hundred eighteen studies were retrieved, 24 of them, including 1,638 patients, were selected. Using a bivariate model, the pooled sensitivity was 89 % (95 % confidence interval 86-92 %), the pooled specificity 72 % (63-79 %). Meta-regression did not show a significant impact on sensitivity/specificity for both year of publication and disease prevalence (p ≥ 0.114). Sensitivity of contrast-enhanced examinations (95 %, 90-97 %) was higher (p = 0.005) than that of unenhanced examinations (87 %, 83-90 %). Specificity of whole-heart acquisition mode (78 %, 72-84 %) was higher (p = 0.006) than that of targeted mode (57 %, 45-69 %). Specificity at 3 T (83 %, 69-92 %) was higher (p = 0.067) than that at 1.5 T (68 %, 60-76 %). Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were low.CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity of MRCA for CAD were 89 % and 72 %, respectively. A specificity higher than 80 % may be obtained at 3 T. Whole-heart contrast-enhanced protocols should be preferred for a higher diagnostic performance.KEY POINTS: • MRCA sensitivity and specificity for CAD are below those of CTA. • Contrast administration increased sensitivity to 95 % (90-97 %), comparable with that of CTA. • Whole-heart mode increased specificity to 78 % (72-84 %), comparable with that of CTA. • Specificity at 3 T was borderline-significantly higher (p = 0.067) than at 1.5 T. • Whole-heart contrast-enhanced protocols are the best approach for MRCA.
AB - OBJECTIVES: To review the diagnostic performance of MR coronary angiography (MRCA) for coronary artery disease (CAD).METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched on MEDLINE/EMBASE with the following inclusion criteria: 01/01/2000-03/23/2015 publication date; per-patient sensitivity/specificity for >50 % stenosis confirmed by conventional coronary angiography with raw data provided or retrievable; sample size >10. Quality was appraised using QUADAS2.RESULTS: Nine hundred eighteen studies were retrieved, 24 of them, including 1,638 patients, were selected. Using a bivariate model, the pooled sensitivity was 89 % (95 % confidence interval 86-92 %), the pooled specificity 72 % (63-79 %). Meta-regression did not show a significant impact on sensitivity/specificity for both year of publication and disease prevalence (p ≥ 0.114). Sensitivity of contrast-enhanced examinations (95 %, 90-97 %) was higher (p = 0.005) than that of unenhanced examinations (87 %, 83-90 %). Specificity of whole-heart acquisition mode (78 %, 72-84 %) was higher (p = 0.006) than that of targeted mode (57 %, 45-69 %). Specificity at 3 T (83 %, 69-92 %) was higher (p = 0.067) than that at 1.5 T (68 %, 60-76 %). Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were low.CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity of MRCA for CAD were 89 % and 72 %, respectively. A specificity higher than 80 % may be obtained at 3 T. Whole-heart contrast-enhanced protocols should be preferred for a higher diagnostic performance.KEY POINTS: • MRCA sensitivity and specificity for CAD are below those of CTA. • Contrast administration increased sensitivity to 95 % (90-97 %), comparable with that of CTA. • Whole-heart mode increased specificity to 78 % (72-84 %), comparable with that of CTA. • Specificity at 3 T was borderline-significantly higher (p = 0.067) than at 1.5 T. • Whole-heart contrast-enhanced protocols are the best approach for MRCA.
KW - Contrast Media
KW - Coronary Angiography
KW - Coronary Artery Disease
KW - Coronary Stenosis
KW - Humans
KW - Magnetic Resonance Angiography
KW - Sensitivity and Specificity
KW - Journal Article
KW - Meta-Analysis
KW - Review
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-015-4134-0
DO - 10.1007/s00330-015-4134-0
M3 - Article
VL - 26
SP - 3706
EP - 3718
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
SN - 0938-7994
IS - 10
ER -