Kwee Thomas C, Kwee Robert M
Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Neuroradiology. 2007 Sep;49(9):703-13. doi: 10.1007/s00234-007-0266-5. Epub 2007 Jul 24.
The aim of this study was to systematically review published data on the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) compared with digital subtraction angiography as reference standard in the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils.
A systematic search for relevant studies was performed of the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study. A meta-analysis of the reported sensitivity and specificity of each study was performed.
The inclusion criteria were met by 16 studies. The studies had moderate methodological quality. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of non-enhanced time-of-flight MRA (TOF-MRA) for the detection of residual flow (within the aneurysmal neck and/or coil mesh) were 83.3% (95% CI 70.3-91.3%) and 90.6% (95% CI 80.4-95.8%), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) for the detection of residual flow were 86.8% (95% CI 71.4-94.5%) and 91.9% (95% CI 79.8-97.0%), respectively. All pooled estimates were subject to heterogeneity. There were no statistically significant differences in pooled sensitivity and specificity between TOF-MRA and CE-MRA.
The results of this study suggest that both TOF-MRA and CE-MRA achieve a moderate to high diagnostic performance. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution because the included studies were of moderate methodological quality and all pooled estimates were subject to heterogeneity. More well-designed studies are required to confirm the current results and MRA at higher field strength (>1.5 T) needs to be further explored.
本研究旨在系统回顾已发表的数据,这些数据是关于在使用 Guglielmi 可脱卸弹簧圈治疗颅内动脉瘤的随访中,将磁共振血管造影(MRA)与数字减影血管造影作为参考标准相比较的诊断性能。
对 PubMed/MEDLINE 和 Embase 数据库进行了相关研究的系统检索。两名评价者独立评估每项研究的方法学质量。对每项研究报告的敏感性和特异性进行了荟萃分析。
16 项研究符合纳入标准。这些研究的方法学质量中等。非增强时间飞跃 MRA(TOF-MRA)检测残余血流(在动脉瘤颈部和/或弹簧圈网内)的合并敏感性和特异性分别为 83.3%(95%CI 70.3 - 91.3%)和 90.6%(95%CI 80.4 - 95.8%)。对比增强 MRA(CE-MRA)检测残余血流的合并敏感性和特异性分别为 86.8%(95%CI 71.4 - 94.5%)和 91.9%(95%CI 79.8 - 97.0%)。所有合并估计值均存在异质性。TOF-MRA 和 CE-MRA 之间的合并敏感性和特异性无统计学显著差异。
本研究结果表明,TOF-MRA 和 CE-MRA 均具有中等至高的诊断性能。然而,这些发现应谨慎解释,因为纳入的研究方法学质量中等,且所有合并估计值均存在异质性。需要更多设计良好的研究来证实当前结果,并且需要进一步探索更高场强(>1.5T)的 MRA。