AIMS: To prospectively compare multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and exercise electrocardiography (ex-ECG) for diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) with conventional coronary angiography as the reference standard. METHODS AND RESULTS: A consecutive cohort of 80 patients with suspected CAD was examined with MSCT using 16 x 0.5 mm detector collimation, ex-ECG, and conventional coronary angiography according to standard protocols. Results were compared using the paired McNemar's test, the chi(2) test, and 95%CIs. Both the sensitivity and specificity of MSCT [91% (40 of 44 patients, 95%CI 78-97%) and 83% (30 of 36 patients, 95%CI 67-94%)] were significantly higher (P = 0.039 and P < 0.001) than those for ex-ECG [73% (32 of 44 patients, 95%CI 57-85%) and 31% (11 of 36 patients, 95%CI 16-48%)]. The pairwise McNemar's test showed significant differences between MSCT and ex-ECG in the overall diagnosis in patients with suspected CAD (P = 0.036). The rate of non-diagnostic examinations was not significantly (P = 0.078) different between MSCT and ex-ECG [8% (6 of 80 patients, 95%CI 3-16%) vs. 19% (15 of 80 patients, 95%CI 11-29%)]. CONCLUSION: In this consecutive cohort of patients scheduled to undergo conventional coronary angiography, the performance of MSCT for diagnosis of CAD was superior to that of ex-ECG.
AIMS: To prospectively compare multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and exercise electrocardiography (ex-ECG) for diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) with conventional coronary angiography as the reference standard. METHODS AND RESULTS: A consecutive cohort of 80 patients with suspected CAD was examined with MSCT using 16 x 0.5 mm detector collimation, ex-ECG, and conventional coronary angiography according to standard protocols. Results were compared using the paired McNemar's test, the chi(2) test, and 95%CIs. Both the sensitivity and specificity of MSCT [91% (40 of 44 patients, 95%CI 78-97%) and 83% (30 of 36 patients, 95%CI 67-94%)] were significantly higher (P = 0.039 and P < 0.001) than those for ex-ECG [73% (32 of 44 patients, 95%CI 57-85%) and 31% (11 of 36 patients, 95%CI 16-48%)]. The pairwise McNemar's test showed significant differences between MSCT and ex-ECG in the overall diagnosis in patients with suspected CAD (P = 0.036). The rate of non-diagnostic examinations was not significantly (P = 0.078) different between MSCT and ex-ECG [8% (6 of 80 patients, 95%CI 3-16%) vs. 19% (15 of 80 patients, 95%CI 11-29%)]. CONCLUSION: In this consecutive cohort of patients scheduled to undergo conventional coronary angiography, the performance of MSCT for diagnosis of CAD was superior to that of ex-ECG.
Authors: Lene H Nielsen; John Markenvard; Jesper M Jensen; Hans Mickley; Kristian A Øvrehus; Bjarne L Nørgaard Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Marc Dewey; Andrea L Vavere; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Julie M Miller; Leonardo Sara; Christopher Cox; Ilan Gottlieb; Kunihiro Yoshioka; Narinder Paul; John Hoe; Albert de Roos; Albert C Lardo; Joao A Lima; Melvin E Clouse Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: E Maffei; A Palumbo; C Martini; A Cuttone; F Ugo; E Emiliano; A Menozzi; L Vignali; V Brambilla; P Coruzzi; A Weustink; N Mollet; D Ardissino; C Reverberi; G Crisi; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: R Malagò; A Pezzato; C Barbiani; U Alfonsi; M D'Onofrio; D Tavella; P Benussi; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Christiane A Geluk; Riksta Dikkers; Patrick J Perik; René A Tio; Marco J W Götte; Hans L Hillege; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Janneke B Houwers; Tineke P Willems; Matthijs Oudkerk; Felix Zijlstra Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-09-28 Impact factor: 5.315