CT for the evaluation of myocardial extracellular volume with MRI as reference: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Myocardial extracellular volume (ECV) fraction is an important imaging biomarker in clinical decision-making. CT-ECV is a potential alternative to MRI for ECV quantification. We conducted a meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the reliability of CT for ECV quantification with MRI as a reference. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles published since the establishment of the database in July 2022. The articles comparing CT-ECV with MRI as a reference were included. Meta-analytic methods were applied to determine the pooled weighted bias, limits of agreement (LOA), and correlation coefficient (r) between CT-ECV and MRI-ECV. Seventeen studies with a total of 459 patients and 2231 myocardial segments were included. The pooled mean difference (MD), LOA, and r for ECV quantification at the per-patient level was (0.07%; 95% LOA: - 0.42 to 0.55%) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91), respectively, while on the per-segment level was (0.44%; 95% LOA: 0.16-0.72%) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.85), respectively. The pooled r from studies with the ECViodine method for ECV quantification was significantly higher compared to those with the ECVsub method (0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96) vs. 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.88), respectively, p = 0.03). The pooled r from septal segments was significantly higher than those from non-septal segments (0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90) vs. 0.76 (95% CI: 0.71-0.90), respectively, p = 0.009). CT showed a good agreement and excellent correlation with MRI for ECV quantification and is a potentially attractive alternative to MRI. Themyocardial extracellular volume fractioncan be acquired using a CT scan, which is not only a viable alternative to myocardial extracellular volume fraction derived from MRI but is also less time-consuming and costly for patients. • Noninvasive CT-ECV is a viable alternative to MRI-ECV for ECV quantification. • CT-ECV using the ECViodine method showed more accurate myocardial ECV quantification than ECVsub. • Septal myocardial segments showed lower measurement variability than non-septal segments for the ECV quantification.