Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Jeffrey Yong Yau Tai, Aphakorn Hasdarngkul, Ranon Earn Yueh Khoo, Brad Milner
{"title":"Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review","authors":"Jeffrey Yong Yau Tai,&nbsp;Aphakorn Hasdarngkul,&nbsp;Ranon Earn Yueh Khoo,&nbsp;Brad Milner","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.70101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) requires accurate identification of thromboembolic and perfusion defects for diagnosis and operability assessment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides radiation-free evaluation of vascular morphology, perfusion distribution and cardiopulmonary function. However, its diagnostic performance in CTEPH has not been comprehensively synthesised.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for detecting chronic thromboembolic material and perfusion defects in CTEPH.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251134001). PubMed, Medline, Embase and Google Scholar were searched from January 2000 to October 2025 for studies assessing MRI-based detection of CTEPH using accepted reference standards, including computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), digital subtraction angiography (DSA), ventilation–perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy or multidisciplinary consensus. Eligible studies evaluated MRI perfusion, contrast-enhanced MR angiography (ce-MRA), non-contrast MRA or advanced MRI techniques in adults with suspected or confirmed CTEPH. Data extraction was performed in duplicate, and the risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Due to heterogeneity among the included studies, the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) framework was used to guide data synthesis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Nine studies involving 563 participants met the inclusion criteria. Across eight MRI perfusion studies, the median sensitivity was 97% and the median specificity was 92.5%. Standard MRI perfusion demonstrated similar performance (median sensitivity 97%, specificity 92%). Three ce-MRA studies yielded a median sensitivity of 87.7% and specificity of 98.1%. Non-contrast MRA showed lower standalone diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 45%, specificity 76%) but improved markedly when combined with ce-MRA. Risk of bias was moderate to high across studies, driven primarily by non-consecutive patient selection, variable reference standards and heterogeneity in MRI protocols.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>MRI demonstrates encouraging diagnostic performance for detecting perfusion defects and chronic thromboembolic material in CTEPH, with MRI perfusion offering high sensitivity and ce-MRA showing high specificity. Non-contrast MRA adds value for proximal vessel assessment when used alongside ce-MRA. However, methodological limitations and study heterogeneity constrain the certainty of existing evidence. Larger, standardised prospective studies are needed to define the precise role of MRI within contemporary CTEPH diagnostic pathways.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":"70 5","pages":"421-428"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1754-9485.70101","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) requires accurate identification of thromboembolic and perfusion defects for diagnosis and operability assessment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides radiation-free evaluation of vascular morphology, perfusion distribution and cardiopulmonary function. However, its diagnostic performance in CTEPH has not been comprehensively synthesised.

Purpose

This review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for detecting chronic thromboembolic material and perfusion defects in CTEPH.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251134001). PubMed, Medline, Embase and Google Scholar were searched from January 2000 to October 2025 for studies assessing MRI-based detection of CTEPH using accepted reference standards, including computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), digital subtraction angiography (DSA), ventilation–perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy or multidisciplinary consensus. Eligible studies evaluated MRI perfusion, contrast-enhanced MR angiography (ce-MRA), non-contrast MRA or advanced MRI techniques in adults with suspected or confirmed CTEPH. Data extraction was performed in duplicate, and the risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Due to heterogeneity among the included studies, the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) framework was used to guide data synthesis.

Results

Nine studies involving 563 participants met the inclusion criteria. Across eight MRI perfusion studies, the median sensitivity was 97% and the median specificity was 92.5%. Standard MRI perfusion demonstrated similar performance (median sensitivity 97%, specificity 92%). Three ce-MRA studies yielded a median sensitivity of 87.7% and specificity of 98.1%. Non-contrast MRA showed lower standalone diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 45%, specificity 76%) but improved markedly when combined with ce-MRA. Risk of bias was moderate to high across studies, driven primarily by non-consecutive patient selection, variable reference standards and heterogeneity in MRI protocols.

Conclusion

MRI demonstrates encouraging diagnostic performance for detecting perfusion defects and chronic thromboembolic material in CTEPH, with MRI perfusion offering high sensitivity and ce-MRA showing high specificity. Non-contrast MRA adds value for proximal vessel assessment when used alongside ce-MRA. However, methodological limitations and study heterogeneity constrain the certainty of existing evidence. Larger, standardised prospective studies are needed to define the precise role of MRI within contemporary CTEPH diagnostic pathways.

磁共振成像在慢性血栓栓塞性肺动脉高压诊断中的应用:系统综述。
背景:慢性血栓栓塞性肺动脉高压(CTEPH)需要准确识别血栓栓塞和灌注缺陷进行诊断和可操作性评估。磁共振成像(MRI)提供血管形态、灌注分布和心肺功能的无辐射评估。然而,其在CTEPH中的诊断性能尚未得到全面的综合。目的:本综述旨在评价MRI技术检测慢性血栓栓塞物质和CTEPH灌注缺陷的诊断准确性。方法:根据PRISMA指南进行系统评价,并在PROSPERO进行前瞻性注册(CRD420251134001)。PubMed, Medline, Embase和谷歌Scholar检索了2000年1月至2025年10月期间使用公认的参考标准评估基于mri检测CTEPH的研究,包括计算机断层扫描肺血管造影(CTPA),数字减影血管造影(DSA),通气灌注(V/Q)显像或多学科共识。符合条件的研究评估了疑似或确诊CTEPH的成人的MRI灌注、对比增强MR血管造影(ce-MRA)、非对比MRA或高级MRI技术。数据提取一式两份,使用QUADAS-2评估偏倚风险。由于纳入的研究存在异质性,采用无meta分析的综合(SWiM)框架指导数据综合。结果:9项研究563名受试者符合纳入标准。在8项MRI灌注研究中,中位敏感性为97%,中位特异性为92.5%。标准MRI灌注表现相似(中位敏感性97%,特异性92%)。三项ce-MRA研究的中位敏感性为87.7%,特异性为98.1%。非对比MRA显示较低的单独诊断准确性(敏感性45%,特异性76%),但与ce-MRA联合时显着提高。所有研究的偏倚风险为中等至高,主要是由于非连续的患者选择、可变的参考标准和MRI方案的异质性。结论:MRI对CTEPH灌注缺陷及慢性血栓栓塞物质的检测具有较好的诊断价值,MRI灌注具有较高的敏感性,ce-MRA具有较高的特异性。当与ce-MRA一起使用时,非对比MRA增加了近端血管评估的价值。然而,方法学的局限性和研究的异质性限制了现有证据的确定性。需要更大规模、标准化的前瞻性研究来确定MRI在当代CTEPH诊断途径中的确切作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
133
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (formerly Australasian Radiology) is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, publishing articles of scientific excellence in radiology and radiation oncology. Manuscripts are judged on the basis of their contribution of original data and ideas or interpretation. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书