Xu Jianfeng, Cai Fei, Geng Changran, Wang Zheng, Tang Xiaobin
Department of Nuclear Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China.
JYAMS PET Research and Development Limited, Nanjing, China.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 May 7;8:621389. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.621389. eCollection 2021.
Myocardial perfusion imaging modalities, such as cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET), are well-established non-invasive diagnostic methods to detect hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare CMR, SPECT, and PET in the diagnosis of CAD and to provide evidence for further research and clinical decision-making. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. Studies that used CMR, SPECT, and/or PET for the diagnosis of CAD were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio with their respective 95% confidence interval, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were calculated. A total of 203 articles were identified for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity values of CMR, SPECT, and PET were 0.86, 0.83, and 0.85, respectively. Their respective overall specificity values were 0.83, 0.77, and 0.86. Results in subgroup analysis of the performance of SPECT with Tl showed the highest pooled sensitivity [0.85 (0.82, 0.88)] and specificity [0.80 (0.75, 0.83)]. Tc-tetrofosmin had the lowest sensitivity [0.76 (0.67, 0.82)]. In the subgroup analysis of PET tracers, results indicated that N had the lowest pooled sensitivity [0.83 (0.74, 0.89)], and the specificity was the highest [0.91 (0.81, 0.96)]. Our meta-analysis indicates that CMR and PET present better diagnostic performance for the detection of CAD as compared with SPECT.
心肌灌注成像模式,如心脏磁共振成像(CMR)、单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)和正电子发射断层扫描(PET),是公认的用于检测具有血流动力学意义的冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的非侵入性诊断方法。本荟萃分析的目的是比较CMR、SPECT和PET在CAD诊断中的效果,并为进一步研究和临床决策提供依据。检索了PubMed、科学网、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆。纳入使用CMR、SPECT和/或PET诊断CAD的研究。计算合并敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比、诊断比值比及其各自的95%置信区间,以及汇总接受者操作特征(SROC)曲线下面积。共确定203篇文章纳入本荟萃分析。CMR、SPECT和PET的合并敏感度值分别为0.86、0.83和0.85。它们各自的总体特异度值分别为0.83、0.77和0.86。SPECT与铊(Tl)性能的亚组分析结果显示,合并敏感度[0.85(0.82,0.88)]和特异度[0.80(0.75,0.83)]最高。锝-替曲膦的敏感度最低[0.76(0.67,0.82)]。在PET示踪剂的亚组分析中,结果表明氮(N)的合并敏感度最低[