Premium
Incidental extracardiac findings on cardiac MR: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Dunet Vincent,
Schwitter Juerg,
Meuli Reto,
BeigelmanAubry Catherine
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.25053
Subject(s) - meta analysis , medicine , confidence interval , publication bias , magnetic resonance imaging , cardiac magnetic resonance imaging , population , cardiac magnetic resonance , random effects model , cardiology , radiology , environmental health
Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence of incidental extracardiac findings (IEFs) on cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) and to determine factors influencing reported prevalences. Materials and Methods We examined studies published in the literature using the MEDLINE database. Studies reporting IEFs on cardiac MR were included. Meta‐analysis provided pooled prevalences of total, minor, major IEFs, and major IEFs with patient management changes using a random‐effects model. Heterogeneity and inconsistency (I‐squared) between studies as well as publication bias were assessed. Results Twelve studies including 7062 patients (mean age: 52 years, range: 0.5–93 years, 4476 male/2586 female) and 7122 cardiac MR examinations were considered in the meta‐analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of total IEFs was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23–47%). The pooled prevalence of minor and major IEFs were 17% (95% CI: 9–26%) and 12% (95% CI: 7–18%), respectively. Newly diagnosed major IEFs changed patient management in 1% (95% CI: 1–2%) of the study population. A high heterogeneity and inconsistency (I‐squared >74%) between studies without publication bias were observed, notably due to IEFs recording method ( P < 0.002) and formal training of cardiac MR readers ( P < 0.006). Conclusion Major IEFs may be found in 12% of patients undergoing cardiac MR examination and change the management in 1% of patients. Readers' training for the evaluation of noncardiac structures increases reported prevalence. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:929–939