OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of 64-slice CT angiography (CTA) compared with single photon emission CT (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), which served as the reference standard, for the detection of functionally significant coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: 141 consecutive patients (60 ± 10 years, 101 men) were investigated with 64-slice CTA and SPECT MPI; a subset of 35 patients had additional invasive coronary angiography (ICA). The data from CTA and ICA were compared with those from MPI for both cut-offs of ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% stenosis, respectively. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of CTA, using a cut-off of ≥ 50% for significant stenosis, in detecting inducible perfusion defects on MPI were 96% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88-100%], 61% (95% CI 52-70%), 37% (95% CI 23-49%), 99% (95% CI 97-100%) and 68%, respectively, in patient-based analysis and 97% (95% CI 91-100%), 86% (95% CI 83-89%), 33% (95% CI 24-42%), 100% (95% CI 99-100%) and 87%, respectively, in vessel-based analysis. Applying a cut-off of ≥ 70% for significant stenosis, CTA yielded the following sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy for the detection of inducible MPI defects: by patient, 65% (95% CI 46-84%), 95% (95% CI 91-99%), 74% (95% CI 50-92%), 92% (95% CI 87-97%) and 89%, respectively; by vessel, 58% (95% CI 42-74%), 97% (95% CI 95-99%), 62% (95% CI 45-79%), 97% (95% CI 95-99%) and 95%, respectively. CONCLUSION: 64-slice CTA is a reliable tool to exclude functionally significant CAD when using a cut-off of ≥ 50% diameter stenosis. By contrast, a cut-off of ≥ 70% diameter narrowing is a strong predictor of ischaemia.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of 64-slice CT angiography (CTA) compared with single photon emission CT (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), which served as the reference standard, for the detection of functionally significant coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: 141 consecutive patients (60 ± 10 years, 101 men) were investigated with 64-slice CTA and SPECT MPI; a subset of 35 patients had additional invasive coronary angiography (ICA). The data from CTA and ICA were compared with those from MPI for both cut-offs of ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% stenosis, respectively. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of CTA, using a cut-off of ≥ 50% for significant stenosis, in detecting inducible perfusion defects on MPI were 96% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88-100%], 61% (95% CI 52-70%), 37% (95% CI 23-49%), 99% (95% CI 97-100%) and 68%, respectively, in patient-based analysis and 97% (95% CI 91-100%), 86% (95% CI 83-89%), 33% (95% CI 24-42%), 100% (95% CI 99-100%) and 87%, respectively, in vessel-based analysis. Applying a cut-off of ≥ 70% for significant stenosis, CTA yielded the following sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy for the detection of inducible MPI defects: by patient, 65% (95% CI 46-84%), 95% (95% CI 91-99%), 74% (95% CI 50-92%), 92% (95% CI 87-97%) and 89%, respectively; by vessel, 58% (95% CI 42-74%), 97% (95% CI 95-99%), 62% (95% CI 45-79%), 97% (95% CI 95-99%) and 95%, respectively. CONCLUSION: 64-slice CTA is a reliable tool to exclude functionally significant CAD when using a cut-off of ≥ 50% diameter stenosis. By contrast, a cut-off of ≥ 70% diameter narrowing is a strong predictor of ischaemia.
Authors: Joanne D Schuijf; William Wijns; J Wouter Jukema; Douwe E Atsma; Albert de Roos; Hildo J Lamb; Marcel P M Stokkel; Petra Dibbets-Schneider; Isabel Decramer; Pieter De Bondt; Ernst E van der Wall; Piet K Vanhoenacker; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Gabija Pundziute; Joanne D Schuijf; J Wouter Jukema; Eric Boersma; Albert de Roos; Ernst E van der Wall; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Christopher L Hansen; Richard A Goldstein; Olakunle O Akinboboye; Daniel S Berman; Elias H Botvinick; Keith B Churchwell; C David Cooke; James R Corbett; S James Cullom; Seth T Dahlberg; Regina S Druz; Edward P Ficaro; James R Galt; Ravi K Garg; Guido Germano; Gary V Heller; Milena J Henzlova; Mark C Hyun; Lynne L Johnson; April Mann; Benjamin D McCallister; Robert A Quaife; Terrence D Ruddy; Senthil N Sundaram; Raymond Taillefer; R Parker Ward; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Piet K Vanhoenacker; Majanka H Heijenbrok-Kal; Ruben Van Heste; Isabel Decramer; Lieven R Van Hoe; William Wijns; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marcus Hacker; Tobias Jakobs; Florian Matthiesen; Christian Vollmar; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christoph Becker; Andreas Knez; Thomas Pfluger; Maximilian Reiser; Klaus Hahn; Reinhold Tiling Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marcus Hacker; Tobias Jakobs; Nicolas Hack; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christoph Becker; Franz von Ziegler; Andreas Knez; Andreas König; Volker Klauss; Maximilian Reiser; Klaus Hahn; Reinhold Tiling Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-09-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maria A C Christou; George C M Siontis; Demosthenes G Katritsis; John P A Ioannidis Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-12-20 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: James K Min; Leslee J Shaw; Richard B Devereux; Peter M Okin; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Donald J Russo; Nicholas J Lippolis; Daniel S Berman; Tracy Q Callister Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Oliver Gaemperli; Tiziano Schepis; Pascal Koepfli; Ines Valenta; Jan Soyka; Sebastian Leschka; Lotus Desbiolles; Lars Husmann; Hatem Alkadhi; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-01-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Salem A Yuoness; Ahmed M Goha; Jonathan G Romsa; Cigdem Akincioglu; James C Warrington; Sudip Datta; David R Massel; Rafael Martell; Sanjay Gambhir; Jean-Luc C Urbain; William C Vezina Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-04 Impact factor: 9.236