CT compared to MRI for functional evaluation of the right ventricle: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Right ventricular function (RVF) is a strong predictor of adverse cardiac events; however, the reference standard for RVF assessment, MRI, is limited in some patients for whom accurate evaluation of RVF is essential, like those with COPD or non-MR compatible metal implants. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate whether CT was as accurate as MRI for the assessment of RVF.
We conducted a meta-analysis of studies retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central searches to evaluate the differences and correlations between the following RVF parameters as measured by CT and MRI: end diastole volume (EDV), end systole volume (ESV), right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF), and stroke volume (SV).
Sixteen studies that used disk summation (637 subjects) and three studies that used three-dimensional reconstruction were included. For the 16 studies, the pooled standard mean differences (95% confidence interval) were 1.04 (− 2.59, 4.67) for EDV, 1.22 (1.50, 3.95) for ESV, − 0.65 (− 2.60, 1.29) for RVEF, and − 0.37 (− 3.64, 2.90) for SV. The overall correlation coefficient (r) values were 0.98 for EDV, 0.95 for ESV, 0.98 for RVEF, and 0.97 for SV. The mean difference between the two methods was not statistically significant (overall effect Z test, p > 0.1).
CT can assess RVF with accuracy comparable to that of MRI. Thus, CT is a valid alternative to MRI.
• CT could help clinicians to assess RVF as accurately as MRI can, with satisfactory repeatability.
KeywordsRight ventricular function Computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Meta-analysis
End diastole volume
End systole volume
Limit of agreement
Magnetic resonance imaging
The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies
Right ventricular ejection fraction
Right ventricular function
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81471722, 81771887, 81471721, 81771897) and Program for Young Scholars and Innovative Research Team in Sichuan Province of China (2017TD0005).
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ying-kun Guo.
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because it is a meta-analysis.
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because of the meta-analysis study design.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
Study subjects and cohorts have been reported previously as detailed in the methods and results as well as reference.
• Performed at one institution
- 9.Hoffmann R, Barletta G, von Bardeleben S et al (2014) Analysis of left ventricular volumes and function: a multicenter comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, cine ventriculography, and unenhanced and contrast-enhanced two-dimensional and three-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 27:292–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Barkhausen J, Ruehm SG, Goyen M, Buck T, Laub G, Debatin JF (2016) Bias associated with left ventricular quantification by multimodality imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart 3:e388Google Scholar
- 14.Pickett CA, Cheezum MK, Kassop D, Villines TC, Hulten EA (2015) Accuracy of cardiac CT, radionucleotide and invasive ventriculography, two- and three-dimensional echocardiography, and SPECT for left and right ventricular ejection fraction compared with cardiac MRI: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 16:848–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Fisher RA (1915) Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficients in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika 10:507–521Google Scholar
- 23.Zhang XC, Yang ZG, Guo YK et al (2012) Assessment of right ventricular function for patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis by 64-slice multi-detector row computed tomography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Chin Med J (Engl) 125:1469–1474Google Scholar
- 26.Schroeder J, Peterschroeder A, Vaske B et al (2009) Cardiac volumetry in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a comparative study correlating multi-slice computed tomography and magnetic resonance tomography. Reasons for intermodal disagreement. Clin Res Cardiol 98:739–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Sugeng L, Mor-Avi V, Weinert L et al (2010) Multimodality comparison of quantitative volumetric analysis of the right ventricle. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 3:10–18Google Scholar