| Literature DB >> 21475396 |
Andrew G Howarth1, Matthias G Friedrich.
Abstract
Imaging of cardiac function and anatomy has advanced at an exponential rate over the past two decades. Our ability to quantitatively assess the degree of myocardial ischemia and accurately define the vascular anatomy using noninvasive techniques is greater than ever before. Current advances is cardiac imaging are allowing us to more safely assess patients for myocardial ischemia and better understand the prognostic implications of our findings. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge in cardiac imaging for the assessment of cardiac ischemia with a focus on the use of cardiac MRI.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21475396 PMCID: PMC3047679 DOI: 10.1007/s12410-011-9068-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep ISSN: 1941-9074
Fig. 1Venn diagram showing the relationship between ischemic burden in the myocardium and the various imaging modalities. LV wall motion abnormalities detect higher burdens of myocardial ischemia, while angiography detects coronary artery disease across a wide range of ischemic burdens
Relative strengths of imaging modalities
| Anatomy | Stress-function | Stress-perfusion | Oxygenation | Prognosis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPECT | − | + | ++ | − | +++ |
| PET | − | − | +++ | + | ++ |
| CMR | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| Echocardiography | ++ | +++ | +/− | − | +++ |
| CT angiography | +++ | − | +/− | − | + |
Relative performance of the available cardiac imaging modalities stratified into domains. Modalities that provide strong anatomic information on the coronary vasculature tend to perform less well in the functional domains, while modalities providing functional information tend to be limited in anatomic data. Cardiac MR is unique in its relative balance of information across domains. Prognostic information is most closely related to the age of the modality, reflecting the time required for this evidence to accumulate
Pooled sensitivity and specificity data for imaging modalities
| Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|
| SPECT | 87% | 73% |
| PET | 89% | 86% |
| CMR | 89% | 80% |
| Echocardiography | 82% | 84% |
| CT angiography | 81% | 93% |
Reported sensitivities and specificities derived from pooled data for the major imaging modalities. Note that these values are influenced by the prevalence of true disease in the study population, which are not balanced across modalities. Thus, the relatively low specificity of SPECT imaging is in part due to the higher prevalence of “false positives” found in the lower-risk cohort for this modality