Fiche publication
Date publication
février 2018
Journal
Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987)
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Pr FELBLINGER Jacques
Tous les auteurs :
Venner C, Odille F, Voilliot D, Chaouat A, Chabot F, Felblinger J, Bonnemains L
Lien Pubmed
Résumé
Background The place of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of pulmonary hypertension (PH) remains controversial. Several studies proposed to use MRI to assess pulmonary pressure but the level of proof is low. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic power of cardiac MRI within a non-selected population of patients suspected of PH after an echocardiography. Material and Methods Fifty-six consecutive patients, suspected of PH after an echocardiography, were assessed with right heart catheterization and cardiac MRI (including a high temporal resolution pulmonary flow curve). We extracted from the MRI data the main parameters proposed by all precedent studies available in the literature. We looked for multivariate linear relations between those parameters and the mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP), and eventually assessed with a logit regression the ability of those parameters to diagnose PH in our population. Results The multivariate model retained only two parameters: the right ventricle ejection fraction and the pulmonary trunk minimum area. The prediction of mPAP (r= 0.5) yielded limits of agreement of 15 mmHg. However, the prediction of PH within the population was feasible and the method yielded a specificity of 80% for a sensitivity of 100%. Conclusion The performance of MRI to assess mPAP is too low to be used as a replacement for right heart catheterization but MRI could be used as second line examination after echocardiography to avoid right heart catheterization for normal patients.
Mots clés
Arterial Pressure, Cardiac Catheterization, Echocardiography, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Pulmonary, diagnosis, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Pulmonary Artery, physiopathology, Stroke Volume
Référence
Acta Radiol. 2018 Feb;59(2):180-187