A systematic review and Meta Analysis on Left Vetricle volumes comparison between MRI and PET abstract
Background:
PET allows non-invasive assessment of the coronary arteries and concurrently can provide measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end diastolic and systolic volumes. The accuracy of
PET for assessment of LVEF compared with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has not been evaluated in a meta-analysis. Purpose: To evaluate, via a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, whether
PET can assess LVEF , end diastolic and systolic volumes with high accuracy compared with
MRI .Methods: Electronic databases and reference lists for relevant published studies were searched. Pub Med database, Scopus (EMbase), Web of Science up to 1 January 2018 and the reference lists of all included studies were searched for further studies. The search strategy was according PICO characteristics; P: suspected CAD, I: Stroke Volume, Ejection-Fraction, End Diastolic Volume and End Systolic Volume, C: Positron Emission Tomography, O: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The heterogeneity between the studies was accounted by P < 0.1. The random/fixed effect model was used according heterogeneity. Point estimates were pooled estimate of noted volumes with 95% confidence interval (CI) by pooling available data. Egger’s test was used to assess publication bias.Results: At last 10 studies were included in meta-analysis. The results of combining 10 studies showed significant difference in end systolic and diastolic volume between
PET and
MRI with a weighted mean differences(95%CI) of 0.2 (0.08-0.33) and 0.24 (0.12-0.37). But there was no significant difference between two mentioned methods with weighted mean differences (95%CI) of -0.08(-0.2-0.05).Conclusion: Two mentioned methods represented the valid technique for the combined evaluation of LV function, LVEF and coronary artery disease. Although,
MRI and
PET is not the first-line test for LV function assessment in most patients, when appropriate, retrospectively
PET provides an accurate and valid assessment of LV function compared with MRI.