Comparison of the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of histologically defined vulnerable carotid plaque: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Chao Hou,Ji-Qing Xuan,Li Zhao,Ming-Xing Li,Wen He,Hui Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-24-540
2024-08-01
Abstract:Background: Vulnerable carotid plaque is closely associated with ischemic stroke. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (HR-MRI) are two imaging modalities capable of assessing the vulnerability of carotid plaques. This systematic review aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of CEUS and HR-MRI in the evaluation of histologically defined vulnerable carotid plaques. Methods: A systematic literature search with predefined search terms was performed on PubMed, the Cochrane library, Embase, and Web of Science from January 2001 to December 2023. Studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of vulnerable carotid plaques confirmed by histology with CEUS and/or HR-MRI were included. The pooled values were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis to determine diagnostic power. Results: This analysis included a total of 839 patients from 20 studies comprising 1,357 HR-MRI plaques and CEUS 504 plaques. With the reference to histological results, all nine CEUS studies focused on the detection of intraplaque neovascularization (IPN), and three studies also examined morphological changes or ulcerated plaques; meanwhile, among the HR-MRI studies, seven predominantly focused on identifying intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) and three mainly examined lipid-rich necrotic cores (LRNCs). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the area under the curve (AUC) for CEUS studies were 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-0.89], 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69-0.83), 3.41 (95% CI: 1.68-6.94), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.05-0.38), 27.68 (95% CI: 5.78-132.62), and 0.89 [standard error (SE) 0.06], respectively; for HR-MRI, these values were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90), 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92), 7.49 (95% CI: 3.28-17.09), 0.17 (95% CI: 0.12-0.24), 49.13 (95% CI: 23.87-101.11), and 0.94 (SE 0.01), respectively. The difference in AUC between the two modalities was not statistically significant (Z=0.82; P=0.68). Conclusions: CEUS and HR-MRI are valuable noninvasive diagnostic tools for identifying histologically confirmed vulnerable carotid plaques and demonstrate similar diagnostic performance. CEUS is more capable of detecting IPN and morphological changes, while HR-MRI is more suited to classifying IPH and LRNCs.