Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare patient outcomes following magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) versus computed tomographic angiography (CTA) ordered for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: In this IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective, case-control study, we reviewed the medical records of all patients evaluated for PE with MRA during a 5-year period along with age- and sex-matched controls evaluated with CTA. Only the first instance of PE evaluation during the study period was included. After application of our exclusion criteria to both study arms, the analysis included 1173 subjects. The primary endpoint was major adverse PE-related event (MAPE), which we defined as major bleeding, venous thromboembolism, or death during the 6 months following the index imaging test (MRA or CTA), obtained through medical record review. Logistic regression, chi-square test for independence, and Fisher's exact test were used with a p < 0.05 threshold. RESULTS: The overall 6-month MAPE rate following MRA (5.4%) was lower than following CTA (13.6%, p < 0.01). Amongst outpatients, the MAPE rate was lower for MRA (3.7%) than for CTA (8.0%, p = 0.01). Accounting for age, sex, referral source, BMI, and Wells' score, patients were less likely to suffer MAPE than those who underwent CTA, with an odds ratio of 0.44 [0.24, 0.80]. Technical success rate did not differ significantly between MRA (92.6%) and CTA (90.5%) groups (p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Within the inherent limitations of a retrospective case-controlled analysis, we observed that the rate of MAPE was lower (more favorable) for patients following pulmonary MRA for the primary evaluation of suspected PE than following CTA.