Cargando…

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) has become a well-established noninvasive imaging method for the assessment of severe carotid stenosis (70–99% by NASCET criteria). However, CE-MRA is not a standardised technique, but encompasses different concurrent techniques. This review...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Menke, Jan
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19399505
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1403-9
_version_ 1782170049479442432
author Menke, Jan
author_facet Menke, Jan
author_sort Menke, Jan
collection PubMed
description Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) has become a well-established noninvasive imaging method for the assessment of severe carotid stenosis (70–99% by NASCET criteria). However, CE-MRA is not a standardised technique, but encompasses different concurrent techniques. This review analyses possible differences. A bivariate random effects meta-analysis of 17 primary diagnostic accuracy studies confirmed a high pooled sensitivity of 94.3% and specificity of 93.0% for carotid CE-MRA in severe carotid stenosis. Sensitivity was fairly uniform among the studies, while specificity showed significant variation (I(2) = 73%). Metaregressions found significant differences for specificity with two covariates: specificity was higher when using not only maximum intensity projection (MIP) images, but also three-dimensional (3D) images (P = 0.01). Specificity was also higher with electronic images than with hardcopies (P = 0.02). The timing technique (bolus-timed, fluoroscopically triggered or time-resolved) did not result in any significant differences in diagnostic accuracy. Some nonsignificant trends were found for the percentages of severe carotid disease, acquisition time and voxel size. In conclusion, in CE-MRA of severe carotid stenosis the three major timing techniques yield comparably high diagnostic accuracy, electronic images are more specific than hardcopies, and 3D images should be used in addition to MIP images to increase the specificity.
format Text
id pubmed-2719078
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27190782009-08-03 Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques Menke, Jan Eur Radiol Magnetic Resonance Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) has become a well-established noninvasive imaging method for the assessment of severe carotid stenosis (70–99% by NASCET criteria). However, CE-MRA is not a standardised technique, but encompasses different concurrent techniques. This review analyses possible differences. A bivariate random effects meta-analysis of 17 primary diagnostic accuracy studies confirmed a high pooled sensitivity of 94.3% and specificity of 93.0% for carotid CE-MRA in severe carotid stenosis. Sensitivity was fairly uniform among the studies, while specificity showed significant variation (I(2) = 73%). Metaregressions found significant differences for specificity with two covariates: specificity was higher when using not only maximum intensity projection (MIP) images, but also three-dimensional (3D) images (P = 0.01). Specificity was also higher with electronic images than with hardcopies (P = 0.02). The timing technique (bolus-timed, fluoroscopically triggered or time-resolved) did not result in any significant differences in diagnostic accuracy. Some nonsignificant trends were found for the percentages of severe carotid disease, acquisition time and voxel size. In conclusion, in CE-MRA of severe carotid stenosis the three major timing techniques yield comparably high diagnostic accuracy, electronic images are more specific than hardcopies, and 3D images should be used in addition to MIP images to increase the specificity. Springer-Verlag 2009-04-28 2009-09 /pmc/articles/PMC2719078/ /pubmed/19399505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1403-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2009
spellingShingle Magnetic Resonance
Menke, Jan
Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques
title Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques
title_full Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques
title_fullStr Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques
title_short Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques
title_sort diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mr angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques
topic Magnetic Resonance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19399505
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1403-9
work_keys_str_mv AT menkejan diagnosticaccuracyofcontrastenhancedmrangiographyinseverecarotidstenosismetaanalysiswithmetaregressionofdifferenttechniques