MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3096985216 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-138464

Detection of Right Ventricular Dysfunction in Acute Pulmonary Embolism By CT Scan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3096985216 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas L.J. Chornenki, Khashayar Poorzargar, Maaz Shanjer, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Mark Crowther, Deborah Siegal

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityImpactQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePulmonary embolismMeta-analysisRadiologyPre- and post-test probabilityCardiologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is associated with higher mortality in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). While precise definitions of RV dysfunction vary, up to 40% of patients with acute PE have evidence of RV dysfunction on echocardiography. The incremental utility of echocardiography for identifying RV dysfunction in acute PE is uncertain particularly when evidence of RV dysfunction is present on computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiogram. However, the diagnostic utility of CT for detecting RV dysfunction is not well established; if CT is shown to have good diagnostic utility, it may reduce the need for routine urgent echocardiography and associated healthcare costs and resource use. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic utility of CT scan findings for detecting RV dysfunction compared to echocardiography. Methods: Using a pre-specified protocol (Prospero ID: CRD42020187812) we systematically searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to April 2020. Studies of any design were included so long as they (i) included patients with acute PE diagnosed by CT scan and received an echocardiographic study within a reasonable timeframe and (ii) reported on test characteristics such that a 2x2 table could be constructed to compare the two diagnostic modalities with echocardiography considered the reference standard. Results were analyzed with the bivariate mixed-effects regression framework. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 risk of bias tool. Results: A total of 631 unique studies were identified by the search. After screening titles and abstracts and reviewing full texts in duplicate, 26 studies (n=3,404 patients) were eligible for inclusion. In individual studies, the average age (mean or median) of patients ranged from 41 to 70 years and 20% to 64.3% were female. The prevalence of RV dysfunction on echocardiography ranged studies from 22.6% to 85.7% and was 63.7% overall. The most common measurements on CT scan were increased RV/LV ratio (21 studies), pulmonary artery measurements (6 studies), RV dilatation or increased size (5 studies), measurements of vena cava size (3 studies), and coronary sinus size (2 studies). Other parameters included reflux of contrast into the inferior vena cava (IVC reflux, 4 studies) and interventricular septal deviation (5 studies). Different combinations of measurements were evaluated in 5 studies. Pooled analysis was performed for septal deviation, IVC reflux, and RV/LV ratio. In pooled analysis septal deviation had a sensitivity of 0.31 (95% CI=0.25- 0.38; I2= 51.6%) and a specificity of 0.98 (95% CI=0.90 - 1.00; I2= 46.9%). IVC reflux had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% CI = 0.40 - 0.93; I2=95.9%) and specificity 0.75 (95% CI=0.47 - 0.93; I2= 91.1%). Where multiple RV/LV ratios were reported, we utilized the one with the highest sensitivity. The pooled sensitivity of increased RV/LV ratio was 0.83 (95% CI=0.78 - 0.87; I2= 82.9) while the pooled specificity was 0.75 (95% CI=0.66- 0.82; I2= 94.6) (Figure 1). Considering all RV/LV ratio studies, the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 (0.83-0.89) for identifying the presence of RV dysfunction present on echocardiography. Overall, most studies were considered at high risk of bias. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that sensitivity was significantly affected by the risk of bias for RV/LV ratio for all QUADAS-2 domains. Specificity was not affected by the risk of bias for any of the QUADAS-2 domains. Conclusions: Our results suggest CT imaging findings appear to have moderate to good diagnostic utility for detecting the presence of RV dysfunction in acute PE. With the exception of septal deviation there was significant heterogeneity amount included studies. Overall, increased RV/LV ratio had the best test characteristics (sensitivity 0.83, specificity 0.75 and AUC 0.86). However, the veracity of these findings is limited by the high risk of bias among included studies. Further analyses regarding the diagnostic utility of combinations of multiple CT findings are warranted. Figure 1 Disclosures Crowther: Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Alnylam: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; CSL Behring: Speakers Bureau; Servier Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Diagnostica Stago: Speakers Bureau; Asahi Kasei: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biologicals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hemostais Reference Laboratories: Honoraria. Siegal:BMS Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Leo Pharma: Honoraria; Portola: Honoraria.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,075

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,043
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0170,031
Bibliométrie0,0070,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,281
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→