ABSTRACT
Background This meta-analysis presents a comparison between Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) and Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA), to diagnose a pulmonary embolism. Computed tomography presents the advantage of imaging the entire thorax, facilitating the diagnosis of conditions that are commonly mistaken for pulmonary embolism, such as pneumonia, aortic dissection, and malignancy. UK and US guidelines have established CT amongst the basic investigations for pulmonary embolism. MRA does not require the use of ionizing radiation or iodinated contrast, thus making it possible for routine use of multiphasic acquisitions as well as for repeated contrast injections
Methodology For the collection of the data, a search was done by two individuals using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases for all relevant literature. Full - Text Articles written only in English were considered. Each qualifying paper was independently evaluated by two reviewers. Each article was analyzed for the number of patients, their age, procedure modality, and incidence of the pre decided complications.
Results The results also showed a high positive predictive value of 0.947 or 94.7% for MRA in the diagnosis of Pulmonary embolism, as compared with CTPA. Some analyses have marked MRA to have low specificity. These results establish MRA as a respectable alternative for diagnosis of APE, especially in cases when reducing radiation exposure is desired. However, the gold standard of diagnosis remains Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography.
Conclusion As the results show, though MRA has high statistical value for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, it also has its drawbacks. MRA cannot be used in severely ill patients as it continues to be challenging, with the longer scan times and multiple breath holds that are required in different MR protocols are difficult to follow in these patients. CTPA remains the gold standard for diagnosis of Pulmonary embolism, with MRA as a secondary test used when CTPA is contraindicated.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The article being a Diagnostic tests accuracy meta-analysis has all the articles cited and referenced at its proper location which were used for the data purposes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
