PURPOSE: CT angiography (CTA) can rule out significant stenoses with a very high reliability, whereas its ability to confirm significant stenoses is suboptimal. In contrast, measurements of myocardial blood flow (MBF) provide information on the haemodynamic consequences of stenoses. Therefore, a combination of the two might improve diagnostic accuracy. We conducted a head-to-head comparison of CTA, measurement of MBF by (15)O-water PET, and hybrid PET/CTA for the detection of significant coronary artery stenoses. METHODS: The study group comprised 44 outpatients scheduled for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with an intermediate pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease. The patients underwent 64-slice CTA and baseline and hyperaemic PET before ICA with quantitative coronary angiography analysis. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, the negative predictive values (NPV; 95% confidence intervals in parentheses) were 88 % (64 - 97%) for CTA, 90% (71 - 97%) for PET and 92% (74 - 98%) for PET/CTA, and the positive predictive values (PPV) were 71% (53 - 85%) for CTA, 87% (68 - 95%) for PET and 100% (84 - 100%) for PET/CTA. Similarly, on a per-vessel basis the NPVs (which were generally high) were 97% (94 - 100%) for CTA, 95 % (90 - 99%) for PET and 97% (95 - 100%) for PET/CTA, and the PPVs (which were lower, but higher with PET/CTA) were 53% (39 - 66%) for CTA, 53 % (40 - 66%) for PET and 85 % (73 - 97%) for PET/CTA. In six patients, CTA analysis was hampered by the presence of severe calcifications. However, with the addition of the PET data, all six patients were correctly categorized. CONCLUSION: Cardiac quantitative hybrid PET/CTA imaging has better diagnostic accuracy than CTA alone and PET alone. CTA has a suboptimal PPV, suggesting that hybrid PET/CTA imaging should be used to assess the significance of coronary stenoses diagnosed by CTA.
PURPOSE: CT angiography (CTA) can rule out significant stenoses with a very high reliability, whereas its ability to confirm significant stenoses is suboptimal. In contrast, measurements of myocardial blood flow (MBF) provide information on the haemodynamic consequences of stenoses. Therefore, a combination of the two might improve diagnostic accuracy. We conducted a head-to-head comparison of CTA, measurement of MBF by (15)O-water PET, and hybrid PET/CTA for the detection of significant coronary artery stenoses. METHODS: The study group comprised 44 outpatients scheduled for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with an intermediate pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease. The patients underwent 64-slice CTA and baseline and hyperaemic PET before ICA with quantitative coronary angiography analysis. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, the negative predictive values (NPV; 95% confidence intervals in parentheses) were 88 % (64 - 97%) for CTA, 90% (71 - 97%) for PET and 92% (74 - 98%) for PET/CTA, and the positive predictive values (PPV) were 71% (53 - 85%) for CTA, 87% (68 - 95%) for PET and 100% (84 - 100%) for PET/CTA. Similarly, on a per-vessel basis the NPVs (which were generally high) were 97% (94 - 100%) for CTA, 95 % (90 - 99%) for PET and 97% (95 - 100%) for PET/CTA, and the PPVs (which were lower, but higher with PET/CTA) were 53% (39 - 66%) for CTA, 53 % (40 - 66%) for PET and 85 % (73 - 97%) for PET/CTA. In six patients, CTA analysis was hampered by the presence of severe calcifications. However, with the addition of the PET data, all six patients were correctly categorized. CONCLUSION: Cardiac quantitative hybrid PET/CTA imaging has better diagnostic accuracy than CTA alone and PET alone. CTA has a suboptimal PPV, suggesting that hybrid PET/CTA imaging should be used to assess the significance of coronary stenoses diagnosed by CTA.
Authors: Todd C Villines; Edward A Hulten; Leslee J Shaw; Manju Goyal; Allison Dunning; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Victor Y Cheng; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Augustin Delago; Martin Hadamitzky; Jörg Hausleiter; Philipp Kaufmann; Fay Y Lin; Erica Maffei; Gilbert L Raff; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Stephen Schroeder; Stephan Achenbach; Frank Bengel; Christof Burgstahler; Filippo Cademartiri; Pim de Feyter; Richard George; Philipp Kaufmann; Andreas F Kopp; Juhani Knuuti; Dieter Ropers; Joanne Schuijf; Laurens F Tops; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: N G Uren; P G Camici; J A Melin; A Bol; B de Bruyne; J Radvan; I Olivotto; S D Rosen; M Impallomeni; W Wijns Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: W Bob Meijboom; Carlos A G Van Mieghem; Niels van Pelt; Annick Weustink; Francesca Pugliese; Nico R Mollet; Eric Boersma; Eveline Regar; Robert J van Geuns; Peter J de Jaegere; Patrick W Serruys; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-08-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Pieter G Raijmakers; Yolande E Appelman; Hendrik J Harms; Stefan de Haan; Mijntje L P van den Oever; Cornelis van Kuijk; Cornelis P Allaart; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Mark Lubberink; Albert C van Rossum; Paul Knaapen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anders Thomassen; Poul-Erik Braad; Kasper T Pedersen; Henrik Petersen; Allan Johansen; Axel C P Diederichsen; Hans Mickley; Lisette O Jensen; Juhani Knuuti; Oke Gerke; Poul F Høilund-Carlsen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Asim Rizvi; Donghee Han; Ibrahim Danad; Bríain Ó Hartaigh; Ji Hyun Lee; Heidi Gransar; Wijnand J Stuijfzand; Hadi Mirhedayati Roudsari; Mahn Won Park; Jackie Szymonifka; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Erica C Jones; Paul Knaapen; Fay Y Lin; James K Min; Jessica M Peña Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-08-16
Authors: David M Small; Jason S Jones; Irwin I Tendler; Paul E Miller; Andre Ghetti; Nozomi Nishimura Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 3.732