PURPOSE: To compare coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography with first-pass magnetic resonance (MR) myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with chest pain and low to intermediate probability of coronary artery disease (CAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local ethics committee approval and patient written informed consent were obtained. Patients with chest pain and low to intermediate pretest probability of CAD underwent both coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Coronary CT angiographic and MR myocardial perfusion images were analyzed qualitatively by blinded observers. Obstructive CAD was defined as more than 50% diameter stenosis at coronary CT angiography. Data were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated from binomial expression. RESULTS: In 145 (94.2%) of 154 eligible patients, both coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging were performed successfully. Mean age was 57 years +/- 10 (standard deviation), and 45.5% of patients were male. Mean interval between coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging was 4.6 days +/- 3.0; median was 5.0 days. CT coronary angiography revealed obstructive CAD in 52 (35.9%) patients and 78 (17.9%) coronary arteries. At MR myocardial perfusion imaging, myocardial ischemia was demonstrated in 33 (22.8%) patients and 59 (13.6%) vessel territories. Of patients without CAD at coronary CT angiography, 90.5% (57 of 63; 95% CI: 82.6%, 95.0%) had normal myocardial perfusion at MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Of patients with nonobstructive CAD, 83.3% (25 of 30; 95% CI: 69.5%, 91.6%) had normal myocardial perfusion at MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Myocardial ischemia was detected at MR myocardial perfusion imaging in 42.3% (22 of 52; 95% CI: 29.5%, 56%) of patients with obstructive CAD at coronary CT angiography. CONCLUSION: MR myocardial perfusion imaging and coronary CT angiography have complementary roles in evaluation of patients who are suspected of having CAD. Coronary CT angiography can be used to reliably rule out CAD, but its capability to demonstrate hemodynamically significant CAD is limited. The combination of both techniques enables the clinician to evaluate morphology and functional relevance of CAD comprehensively and noninvasively. (c) RSNA, 2010.
PURPOSE: To compare coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography with first-pass magnetic resonance (MR) myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with chest pain and low to intermediate probability of coronary artery disease (CAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local ethics committee approval and patient written informed consent were obtained. Patients with chest pain and low to intermediate pretest probability of CAD underwent both coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Coronary CT angiographic and MR myocardial perfusion images were analyzed qualitatively by blinded observers. Obstructive CAD was defined as more than 50% diameter stenosis at coronary CT angiography. Data were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated from binomial expression. RESULTS: In 145 (94.2%) of 154 eligible patients, both coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging were performed successfully. Mean age was 57 years +/- 10 (standard deviation), and 45.5% of patients were male. Mean interval between coronary CT angiography and MR myocardial perfusion imaging was 4.6 days +/- 3.0; median was 5.0 days. CT coronary angiography revealed obstructive CAD in 52 (35.9%) patients and 78 (17.9%) coronary arteries. At MR myocardial perfusion imaging, myocardial ischemia was demonstrated in 33 (22.8%) patients and 59 (13.6%) vessel territories. Of patients without CAD at coronary CT angiography, 90.5% (57 of 63; 95% CI: 82.6%, 95.0%) had normal myocardial perfusion at MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Of patients with nonobstructive CAD, 83.3% (25 of 30; 95% CI: 69.5%, 91.6%) had normal myocardial perfusion at MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Myocardial ischemia was detected at MR myocardial perfusion imaging in 42.3% (22 of 52; 95% CI: 29.5%, 56%) of patients with obstructive CAD at coronary CT angiography. CONCLUSION: MR myocardial perfusion imaging and coronary CT angiography have complementary roles in evaluation of patients who are suspected of having CAD. Coronary CT angiography can be used to reliably rule out CAD, but its capability to demonstrate hemodynamically significant CAD is limited. The combination of both techniques enables the clinician to evaluate morphology and functional relevance of CAD comprehensively and noninvasively. (c) RSNA, 2010.
Authors: J G J Groothuis; A M Beek; M R Meijerink; S L Brinckman; M B M Hofman; A C van Rossum Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Klaus Lackner; Henning Bovenschulte; Hartmut Stützer; Thomas Just; Hassan Al-Hassani; Barbara Krug Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-10-24 Impact factor: 2.357