Diagnostic performance of echocardiography for the detection of acute cardiac allograft rejection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS One. 2015 Mar 30;10(3):e0121228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121228. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

Objective: Many studies have addressed the diagnostic performance of echocardiography to evaluate acute cardiac allograft rejection compared with endomyocardial biopsy. But the existence of heterogeneity limited its clinical application. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive, systematic literature review and meta-analysis for the purpose.

Methods: Studies prior to September 1, 2014 identified by Medline/PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrance were examined by two independent reviews. We conducted meta-analysis by using Meta-DiSc 1.4 software. An assessment tool of QUADAS-2 was applied to evaluate the risk of bias and applicability of the studies.

Results: Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria of meta-analysis. The four parameters of pressure half time, isovolumic relaxation time, index of myocardial performance and late diastolic mitral annular motion velocity were included in the meta-analysis, with a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 10.43, 6.89, 15.95 and 5.68 respectively, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves value of 0.829, 0.599, 0.871 and 0.685 respectively.

Conclusion: The meta-analysis and systematic review demonstrate that no single parameter of echocardiography showed a reliable diagnostic performance for acute cardiac allograft rejection. A result of echocardiography for ACAR should be comprehensively considered by physicians in the context of clinical presentations and imaging feature.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Area Under Curve
  • Echocardiography / methods*
  • Echocardiography / standards*
  • Graft Rejection / diagnosis*
  • Heart Transplantation / adverse effects*
  • Humans
  • Odds Ratio
  • ROC Curve

Grants and funding

This study was supported by the “Standard Diagnosis and Treatment and Key Technology Research of Aortic Dissection” from the Research Special Fund for the Public Welfare Industry of Health (201402009). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.