BACKGROUND: Myocardial stress computed tomography perfusion (CTP) has similar diagnostic accuracy for detecting perfusion defects (PDs) versus single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). However, the optimal diagnostic viewing and image processing parameters for CTP are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of different image processing techniques, cardiac phases, slice thicknesses, and viewing parameters for detection of PDs. METHODS: A stress and rest dual-source CTP protocol was performed with adenosine. Twelve subjects with severe stenosis proven by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), with corresponding territorial defects at SPECT, were selected as well as 7 controls (subjects with similar clinical suspicion but negative QCA and SPECT). Short-axis stress images were processed with 3 techniques: minimum intensity projection (MinIP), maximum intensity projection, and average intensity multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), 3 thicknesses (1, 3, 8 mm), and 2 phases (systolic, mid-diastolic). The resulting images (n = 1026) were randomized and interpreted by independent readers. RESULTS: Diastolic reconstructions (8-mm MPR) showed the highest sensitivity (81%) to detect true PDs. The highest accuracy was achieved with the 8-mm (61%) and 1-mm (61%) MPR diastolic images. The most sensitive and accurate systolic reconstructions were 3-mm MinIP images. These findings related to viewing in relatively narrow window width and window level settings. CONCLUSION: Viewing parameters for optimal accuracy in detection of perfusion defects on CTP differ for systolic and diastolic images.
BACKGROUND: Myocardial stress computed tomography perfusion (CTP) has similar diagnostic accuracy for detecting perfusion defects (PDs) versus single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). However, the optimal diagnostic viewing and image processing parameters for CTP are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of different image processing techniques, cardiac phases, slice thicknesses, and viewing parameters for detection of PDs. METHODS: A stress and rest dual-source CTP protocol was performed with adenosine. Twelve subjects with severe stenosis proven by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), with corresponding territorial defects at SPECT, were selected as well as 7 controls (subjects with similar clinical suspicion but negative QCA and SPECT). Short-axis stress images were processed with 3 techniques: minimum intensity projection (MinIP), maximum intensity projection, and average intensity multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), 3 thicknesses (1, 3, 8 mm), and 2 phases (systolic, mid-diastolic). The resulting images (n = 1026) were randomized and interpreted by independent readers. RESULTS: Diastolic reconstructions (8-mm MPR) showed the highest sensitivity (81%) to detect true PDs. The highest accuracy was achieved with the 8-mm (61%) and 1-mm (61%) MPR diastolic images. The most sensitive and accurate systolic reconstructions were 3-mm MinIP images. These findings related to viewing in relatively narrow window width and window level settings. CONCLUSION: Viewing parameters for optimal accuracy in detection of perfusion defects on CTP differ for systolic and diastolic images.
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: Ian S Rogers; Ricardo C Cury; Ron Blankstein; Michael D Shapiro; Koen Nieman; Udo Hoffmann; Thomas J Brady; Suhny Abbara Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2010-04-11
Authors: Raymond Taillefer; Alan W Ahlberg; Yasmin Masood; C Michael White; Isabella Lamargese; Jeffrey F Mather; Carol C McGill; Gary V Heller Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jose A Rocha-Filho; Ron Blankstein; Leonid D Shturman; Hiram G Bezerra; David R Okada; Ian S Rogers; Brian Ghoshhajra; Udo Hoffmann; Gudrun Feuchtner; Wilfred S Mamuya; Thomas J Brady; Ricardo C Cury Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-02 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: Ron Blankstein; Leon D Shturman; Ian S Rogers; Jose A Rocha-Filho; David R Okada; Ammar Sarwar; Anand V Soni; Hiram Bezerra; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Milena Petranovic; Ricardo Loureiro; Gudrun Feuchtner; Henry Gewirtz; Udo Hoffmann; Wilfred S Mamuya; Thomas J Brady; Ricardo C Cury Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Amit Pursnani; Ashley M Lee; Thomas Mayrhofer; Waleed Ahmed; Shanmugam Uthamalingam; Maros Ferencik; Stefan B Puchner; Fabian Bamberg; Christopher L Schlett; James Udelson; Udo Hoffmann; Brian B Ghoshhajra Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: John M Troupis; Alex Karge; Sujith Seneviratne; Arthur Nasis; Eileen C Ang; Brian S Ko; Dee Nandurkar; Eldho Paul; Roland Hilling-Smith; James Cameron Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 2.357