BACKGROUND: Multislice computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the main candidates for noninvasive coronary angiography; however, multislice CT, unlike MRI, exposes patients to radiation and an iodinated intravenous contrast agent. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of multislice CT and MRI for noninvasive detection of clinically significant coronary stenoses (> or =50%). DESIGN: Prospective intention-to-diagnose study. SETTING: Single tertiary referral center, Berlin, Germany. PATIENTS: 129 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease. INTERVENTIONS: Multislice CT and MRI were both performed within a median of 1 day before conventional coronary angiography, which served as the reference standard. MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic performance of multislice CT and MRI. RESULTS: 129 patients completed the study. Altogether, 108 patients with 430 vessels could be examined with both multislice CT and MRI and were used for analysis. In the per-patient analysis, the sensitivity of multislice CT (92% [95% CI, 82% to 96%]) was significantly higher than that of MRI (74% [CI, 61% to 83%]; P = 0.013). The sensitivity for detecting clinically significant stenoses was 82% for multislice CT and 54% for MRI (P < 0.001). Specificity and negative predictive value of multislice CT and MRI in the per-vessel analysis were 90% versus 87% (P = 0.73) and 95% versus 90% (P = 0.032), respectively. The effective radiation dose used with multislice CT (mean, 12.3 mSv [SD, 1.4]) in a consecutive subgroup of 73 patients was not significantly different from that used with diagnostic cardiac catheterization (11.4 mSv [SD, 4.8]) (P = 0.169). Most patients (74%) indicated that they would prefer multislice CT for future diagnostic imaging (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study with 129 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred for conventional coronary angiography, multislice CT compares favorably with MRI for noninvasive detection of coronary stenoses.
BACKGROUND: Multislice computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the main candidates for noninvasive coronary angiography; however, multislice CT, unlike MRI, exposes patients to radiation and an iodinated intravenous contrast agent. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of multislice CT and MRI for noninvasive detection of clinically significant coronary stenoses (> or =50%). DESIGN: Prospective intention-to-diagnose study. SETTING: Single tertiary referral center, Berlin, Germany. PATIENTS: 129 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease. INTERVENTIONS: Multislice CT and MRI were both performed within a median of 1 day before conventional coronary angiography, which served as the reference standard. MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic performance of multislice CT and MRI. RESULTS: 129 patients completed the study. Altogether, 108 patients with 430 vessels could be examined with both multislice CT and MRI and were used for analysis. In the per-patient analysis, the sensitivity of multislice CT (92% [95% CI, 82% to 96%]) was significantly higher than that of MRI (74% [CI, 61% to 83%]; P = 0.013). The sensitivity for detecting clinically significant stenoses was 82% for multislice CT and 54% for MRI (P < 0.001). Specificity and negative predictive value of multislice CT and MRI in the per-vessel analysis were 90% versus 87% (P = 0.73) and 95% versus 90% (P = 0.032), respectively. The effective radiation dose used with multislice CT (mean, 12.3 mSv [SD, 1.4]) in a consecutive subgroup of 73 patients was not significantly different from that used with diagnostic cardiac catheterization (11.4 mSv [SD, 4.8]) (P = 0.169). Most patients (74%) indicated that they would prefer multislice CT for future diagnostic imaging (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study with 129 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred for conventional coronary angiography, multislice CT compares favorably with MRI for noninvasive detection of coronary stenoses.
Authors: W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Richard M McCarthy; Vibhas S Deshpande; Nirat Beohar; Sheridan N Meyers; Steven M Shea; Jordin D Green; Xin Liu; Xiaoming Bi; F Scott Pereles; John Paul Finn; Charles J Davidson; James C Carr; Debiao Li Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Thanh D Nguyen; Pascal Spincemaille; Matthew D Cham; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Julie M Miller; Marc Dewey; Andrea L Vavere; Carlos E Rochitte; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Narinder Paul; John Hoe; Albert de Roos; Kunihiro Yoshioka; Pedro A Lemos; David E Bush; Albert C Lardo; John Texter; Jeffery Brinker; Christopher Cox; Melvin E Clouse; João A C Lima Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-11-08 Impact factor: 5.315