Document Detail


Comparison of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and conventional pulmonary angiography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a prospective study.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  12020524     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism are complex and consist of non-invasive diagnostic tests done to avoid conventional pulmonary angiography as much as possible. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, using conventional pulmonary angiography as a reference method. METHODS: In a prospective study, we enrolled 141 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and an abnormal perfusion scan. Patients underwent MRA before conventional pulmonary angiography. Two reviewers, masked with respect to the results of conventional pulmonary angiography, assessed MRA images independently. Statistical analyses used chi(2) and 95% CI. FINDINGS: MRA was contraindicated in 13 patients (9%), and images were not interpretable in eight (6%). MRA was done in two patients in whom conventional pulmonary angiography was contraindicated. Thus, MRA and conventional pulmonary angiography results were available in 118 patients (84%). Prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 30%. Images were read independently in 115 patients, and agreement obtained in 105 (91%), kappa=0.75. MRA identified 27 of 35 patients with proven pulmonary embolism (sensitivity 77%, 95% CI 61-90). Sensitivity of MRA for isolated subsegmental, segmental, and central or lobar pulmonary embolism was 40%, 84%, and 100%, respectively (p<0.01 for isolated subsegmental vs segmental or larger pulmonary embolism). However, subgroups contained small numbers. MRA identified pulmonary embolism in two patients with normal angiogram (98%, 92-100). INTERPRETATION: MRA is sensitive and specific for segmental or larger pulmonary embolism. Results are similar to those obtained with helical computed tomography, but MRA has safer contrast agents and does not involve ionising radiation. MRA could become part of the diagnostic strategy for pulmonary embolism.
Authors:
Matthijs Oudkerk; Edwin J R van Beek; Piotr Wielopolski; Peter M A van Ooijen; Elise M J Brouwers-Kuyper; Alfons H H Bongaerts; Arie Berghout
Related Documents :
17287684 - Integration of computed tomographic coronary angiography into the invasive laboratory a...
9335064 - Case report. mri and mr angiography of basilar artery dissection in a child.
12353294 - Navigator-gated free-breathing 3d balanced ffe projection renal mra: comparison with co...
17178684 - Ultrafast time-resolved contrast-enhanced 3d pulmonary venous cardiovascular magnetic r...
8934334 - An effective tool to detect lesions causing unstable angina with multivessel disease: i...
1516414 - Pulmonary dirofilariasis. the largest single-hospital experience.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Lancet     Volume:  359     ISSN:  0140-6736     ISO Abbreviation:  Lancet     Publication Date:  2002 May 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2002-05-21     Completed Date:  2002-06-19     Revised Date:  2006-11-15    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  2985213R     Medline TA:  Lancet     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1643-7     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Daniel den Hoed Clinic/Academic Hospital Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands. m.oudkerk@rad.azg.nl
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Angiography / methods*
Chi-Square Distribution
Contrast Media
Female
Gadolinium / diagnostic use
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Magnetic Resonance Angiography*
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Pulmonary Artery / radiography
Pulmonary Embolism / diagnosis*,  radiography
Sensitivity and Specificity
Chemical
Reg. No./Substance:
0/Contrast Media; 7440-54-2/Gadolinium
Comments/Corrections
Comment In:
ACP J Club. 2002 Nov-Dec;137(3):111   [PMID:  12418851 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Cost-effectiveness of HIV/AIDS interventions in Africa: a systematic review of the evidence.
Next Document:  Azithromycin for acute bronchitis: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.