Key result
Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance had only 50% sensitivity and 100% specificity for detecting patent foramen ovale compared to contrast transoesophageal echocardiography.
Why the study?
Does contrast-enhanced CMR match the diagnostic accuracy of contrast TEE for detecting patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke?
Cross-Sectional (n=25)
Does contrast-enhanced CMR match the diagnostic accuracy of contrast TEE for detecting patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke?
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 50%, Specificity 100%
Absolute Event Rate: 28% vs 64%
Contrast TEE remains superior to contrast-enhanced CMR for the detection and characterization of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke.
TEE should remain the reference standard for PFO detection; leaves open any adjunctive role for CMR pending prospective studies.
AIMS: In 30-40% of patients with acute ischaemic stroke, the cause remains undefined (cryptogenic stroke). Contrast transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is considered the gold standard for patent foramen ovale (PFO) detection. Recently, however, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has also been applied to detect PFO. In this study, we compared the diagnostic value of CMR and TEE in detecting PFO in a group of patients with apparently cryptogenic stroke. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (age 50 ± 13 years, 16 males) with apparently cryptogenic ischaemic stroke underwent contrast-enhanced TEE and contrast CMR for detection of possible PFO. Both imaging studies were performed during Valsalva manoeuvre. PFO grading results were assessed visually both for TEE and for CMR, according to the entity of contrast passage in the left atrium (grade 0 = no PFO; grades 1, 2, and 3 = mild, medium, and wide PFO, respectively). TEE detected PFO in 16 patients (64%). Contrast-enhanced CMR identified a PFO in 7 (44%) of these patients. TEE showed a grade 1 PFO in five patients, a grade 2 PFO in eight patients, and a grade 3 PFO in three patients. Of these patients, CMR failed to identify PFO in all five patients with a grade 1 PFO, in one patient with a grade 2 PFO, and one patient with grade 3 PFO according to TEE. None of the nine patients without PFO at TEE was shown to have a PFO at CMR. When compared with TEE, the present methodology of CMR had a sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 100%, negative predictive value of 31%, and a positive predictive value of 100%. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that TEE is the cornerstone imaging diagnostic test to detect and characterize PFO in patients with ischaemic stroke, and is shown to be better compared with the current CMR sequences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hamilton‐Craig et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional in cryptogenic ischaemic stroke (n=25). Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) vs. Contrast transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was evaluated on Detection of patent foramen ovale (PFO) (Sensitivity 50%, Specificity 100%). Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance had only 50% sensitivity and 100% specificity for detecting patent foramen ovale compared to contrast transoesophageal echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: