19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Vasodilator Myocardial Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Superior to Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography in the Detection of Relevant Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Their Diagnostic Accuracy

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives: Guideline recommendations for patients with either a high or a low risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are clear. However, the evidence for initial risk stratification in patients with an intermediate risk of CAD is still unclear, despite the availability of multiple non-invasive assessment strategies. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for this population to provide more informed recommendations.

          Background: A meta-analysis was performed to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (pCMR) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) for the detection of relevant CAD. In contrast to previous work, this meta-analysis follows rigorous selection criteria in regards to the risk stratification and a narrowly prespecified definition of their invasive reference tests, resulting in unprecedentedly informative results for this reference group.

          Data Collection and Analysis: From the 5,634 studies identified, 1,306 relevant articles were selected after title screening and further abstract screening left 865 studies for full-text review. Of these, 47 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria resulting in a total sample size of 4,742 patients.

          Results: pCMR studies showed a superior sensitivity [0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85–0.90) vs. 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61–0.81)], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) [38 (95% CI: 29–49) vs. 20 (95% CI: 9–46)] and an augmented post-test probability [negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.12–0.18) vs. 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.46)] as compared to DSE. Specificity was statistically indifferent [0.84 (95% CI: 0.81–0.87) vs. 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83–0.93)].

          Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that pCMR has a superior diagnostic test accuracy for relevant CAD compared to DSE. In patients with intermediate risk of CAD only pCMR can reliably rule out relevant stenosis. In this risk cohort, pCMR can be offered for initial risk stratification and guidance of further invasive treatment as it also rules in relevant CAD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Cardiovasc Med
                Front Cardiovasc Med
                Front. Cardiovasc. Med.
                Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2297-055X
                12 March 2021
                2021
                : 8
                : 630846
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Cardiology, Pneumology and Angiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf , Düsseldorf, Germany
                [2] 2Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science , London, United Kingdom
                [3] 3William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London , London, United Kingdom
                [4] 4Barts Heart Center, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS (National Health Service) Trust , London, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Constantinos Anagnostopoulos, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens (BRFAA), Greece

                Reviewed by: Alexios Antonopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; Alessia Gimelli, Gabriele Monasterio Tuscany Foundation (CNR), Italy

                *Correspondence: Sebastian M. Haberkorn sebastian.haberkorn@ 123456med.uni-duesseldorf.de

                This article was submitted to Cardiovascular Imaging, a section of the journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

                Article
                10.3389/fcvm.2021.630846
                7994268
                33778024
                497fcb2b-2087-42b7-a928-9b6d72fd5dc2
                Copyright © 2021 Haberkorn, Haberkorn, Bönner, Kelm, Hopkin and Petersen.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 18 November 2020
                : 15 February 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 32, Pages: 13, Words: 7763
                Categories
                Cardiovascular Medicine
                Systematic Review

                meta-analysis,systematic (literature) review,dobutamine stress echocardiography,diagnostic test accuracy,cardiac imaging,coronary artery disease,cardiac mr,myocardial perfusion mr

                Comments

                Comment on this article