Original Article
Diagnostic performance of cardiac magnetic resonance for the detection of acute cardiac allograft rejection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Several studies have addressed the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess acute cardiac allograft rejection (ACAR) compared with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). But the methodological heterogeneity limited the clinical application of CMR. Accordingly, we have sought a comprehensive, systematic literature review and meta-analysis for the purpose.
Methods: Studies prior to September 1, 2014 identified by Medline/PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrance search and citation tracking were examined by two independent reviewers. A study was included if a CMR was used as a diagnostic test for the detection of ACAR.
Results: Of the seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Only four studies using T2 relaxation time as a CMR parameter could be pooled results, because the number of studies using other parameters was less than three. By using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, meta-analysis demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 79% to 97%], a pooled specificity of 83% (95% CI, 78% to 88%), and a pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 61.66 (95% CI, 18.09 to 210.10).
Conclusions: CMR seems to have a high sensitivity and moderate specificity in the diagnosis of ACAR. However, as a result of CMR for diagnostic ACAR should be comprehensively considered by physicians and imaging experts in the context of clinical presentations and imaging feature. Further investigations are still required to test different parameters and study condition.
Methods: Studies prior to September 1, 2014 identified by Medline/PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrance search and citation tracking were examined by two independent reviewers. A study was included if a CMR was used as a diagnostic test for the detection of ACAR.
Results: Of the seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Only four studies using T2 relaxation time as a CMR parameter could be pooled results, because the number of studies using other parameters was less than three. By using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, meta-analysis demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 79% to 97%], a pooled specificity of 83% (95% CI, 78% to 88%), and a pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 61.66 (95% CI, 18.09 to 210.10).
Conclusions: CMR seems to have a high sensitivity and moderate specificity in the diagnosis of ACAR. However, as a result of CMR for diagnostic ACAR should be comprehensively considered by physicians and imaging experts in the context of clinical presentations and imaging feature. Further investigations are still required to test different parameters and study condition.
