INTRODUCTION: We have recently described a technique for assessing myocardial perfusion using adenosine-mediated stress imaging (CTP) with dual source computed tomography. SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI) is a widely utilized and extensively validated method for assessing myocardial perfusion. The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between CTP and SPECT-MPI at rest and under stress on a per-segment, per-vessel, and per-patient basis. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients underwent CTP and SPECT-MPI. Perfusion images were interpreted using the 17 segment AHA model and were scored on a 0 (normal) to 3 (abnormal) scale. Summed rest and stress scores were calculated for each vascular territory and patient by adding corresponding segmental scores. RESULTS: On a per-segment basis (n = 799), CTP and SPECT-MPI demonstrated excellent correlation: Goodman-Kruskall gamma = .59 (P < .0001) for stress and .75 (P < .0001) for rest. On a per-vessel basis (n = 141), CTP and SPECT-MPI summed scores demonstrated good correlation: Pearson r = .56 (P < .0001) for stress and .66 (P < .0001) for rest. On a per-patient basis (n = 47), CTP and SPECT-MPI demonstrated good correlation: Pearson r = .60 (P < .0001) for stress and .76 (P < .0001) for rest. CONCLUSIONS: CTP compares favorably with SPECT-MPI for detection, extent, and severity of myocardial perfusion defects at rest and stress.
INTRODUCTION: We have recently described a technique for assessing myocardial perfusion using adenosine-mediated stress imaging (CTP) with dual source computed tomography. SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI) is a widely utilized and extensively validated method for assessing myocardial perfusion. The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement between CTP and SPECT-MPI at rest and under stress on a per-segment, per-vessel, and per-patient basis. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients underwent CTP and SPECT-MPI. Perfusion images were interpreted using the 17 segment AHA model and were scored on a 0 (normal) to 3 (abnormal) scale. Summed rest and stress scores were calculated for each vascular territory and patient by adding corresponding segmental scores. RESULTS: On a per-segment basis (n = 799), CTP and SPECT-MPI demonstrated excellent correlation: Goodman-Kruskall gamma = .59 (P < .0001) for stress and .75 (P < .0001) for rest. On a per-vessel basis (n = 141), CTP and SPECT-MPI summed scores demonstrated good correlation: Pearson r = .56 (P < .0001) for stress and .66 (P < .0001) for rest. On a per-patient basis (n = 47), CTP and SPECT-MPI demonstrated good correlation: Pearson r = .60 (P < .0001) for stress and .76 (P < .0001) for rest. CONCLUSIONS:CTP compares favorably with SPECT-MPI for detection, extent, and severity of myocardial perfusion defects at rest and stress.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J K Kahn; I McGhie; M S Akers; M N Sills; T L Faber; P V Kulkarni; J T Willerson; J R Corbett Journal: Circulation Date: 1989-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Udo Hoffmann; Ryan Millea; Christian Enzweiler; Maros Ferencik; Scott Gulick; Jim Titus; Stephan Achenbach; Dylan Kwait; David Sosnovik; Thomas J Brady Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Richard T George; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Julie M Miller; Kakuya Kitagawa; Hyuk-Jae Chang; David A Bluemke; Lewis Becker; Omair Yousuf; John Texter; Albert C Lardo; João A C Lima Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Brian B Ghoshhajra; Ian S Rogers; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Tust Techasith; Daniel Verdini; Manavjot S Sidhu; Nicola K Drzezga; Hector M Medina; Ron Blankstein; Thomas J Brady; Ricardo C Cury Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2011-10-31
Authors: J Tobias Kühl; Jesper J Linde; Andreas Fuchs; Thomas S Kristensen; Henning Kelbæk; Richard T George; Jens D Hove; Klaus Fuglsang Kofoed Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ullrich Ebersberger; Roy P Marcus; U Joseph Schoepf; Gladys G Lo; Yining Wang; Philipp Blanke; Lucas L Geyer; J Cranston Gray; Andrew D McQuiston; Young Jun Cho; Michael Scheuering; Christian Canstein; Konstantin Nikolaou; Ellen Hoffmann; Fabian Bamberg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-09-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Arthur Nasis; Brian S Ko; Michael C Leung; Paul R Antonis; Dee Nandurkar; Dennis T Wong; Leo Kyi; James D Cameron; John M Troupis; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Henry Chang; James K Min; Sunil V Rao; Manesh R Patel; Orlando P Simonetti; Giuseppe Ambrosio; Subha V Raman Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 7.792