BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in women, and underdiagnosis contributes to the high mortality. This study compared the sex-specific diagnostic performance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 235 women and 393 men with suspected angina underwent CMR, SPECT, and x-ray angiography as part of the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease (CE-MARC) study. CMR comprised adenosine stress/rest perfusion, cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, and magnetic resonance coronary angiography. Gated adenosine stress/rest SPECT was performed with (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin. For CMR, the sensitivity in women and men was similar (88.7% versus 85.6%; P=0.57), as was the specificity (83.5% versus 82.8%; P=0.86). For SPECT, the sensitivity was significantly worse in women than in men (50.9% versus 70.8%; P=0.007), but the specificities were similar (84.1% versus 81.3%; P=0.48). The sensitivity in both the female and male groups was significantly higher with CMR than SPECT (P<0.0001 for both), but the specificity was similar (P=0.77 and P=1.00, respectively). For perfusion-only components, CMR outperformed SPECT in women (area under the curve, 0.90 versus 0.67; P<0.0001) and in men (area under the curve, 0.89 versus 0.74; P<0.0001). Diagnostic accuracy was similar in both sexes with perfusion CMR (P=1.00) but was significantly worse in women with SPECT (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In both sexes, CMR has greater sensitivity than SPECT. Unlike SPECT, there are no significant sex differences in the diagnostic performance of CMR. These findings, plus an absence of ionizing radiation exposure, mean that CMR should be more widely adopted in women with suspected coronary artery disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN77246133.
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in women, and underdiagnosis contributes to the high mortality. This study compared the sex-specific diagnostic performance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 235 women and 393 men with suspected angina underwent CMR, SPECT, and x-ray angiography as part of the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease (CE-MARC) study. CMR comprised adenosine stress/rest perfusion, cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, and magnetic resonance coronary angiography. Gated adenosine stress/rest SPECT was performed with (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin. For CMR, the sensitivity in women and men was similar (88.7% versus 85.6%; P=0.57), as was the specificity (83.5% versus 82.8%; P=0.86). For SPECT, the sensitivity was significantly worse in women than in men (50.9% versus 70.8%; P=0.007), but the specificities were similar (84.1% versus 81.3%; P=0.48). The sensitivity in both the female and male groups was significantly higher with CMR than SPECT (P<0.0001 for both), but the specificity was similar (P=0.77 and P=1.00, respectively). For perfusion-only components, CMR outperformed SPECT in women (area under the curve, 0.90 versus 0.67; P<0.0001) and in men (area under the curve, 0.89 versus 0.74; P<0.0001). Diagnostic accuracy was similar in both sexes with perfusion CMR (P=1.00) but was significantly worse in women with SPECT (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In both sexes, CMR has greater sensitivity than SPECT. Unlike SPECT, there are no significant sex differences in the diagnostic performance of CMR. These findings, plus an absence of ionizing radiation exposure, mean that CMR should be more widely adopted in women with suspected coronary artery disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN77246133.
Entities:
Keywords:
magnetic resonance imaging; myocardial ischemia; tomography, emission-computed, single-photon; women
Authors: Lauren A Baldassarre; Subha V Raman; James K Min; Jennifer H Mieres; Martha Gulati; Nanette K Wenger; Thomas H Marwick; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; C Noel Bairey Merz; Dipti Itchhaporia; Keith C Ferdinand; Carl J Pepine; Mary Norine Walsh; Jagat Narula; Leslee J Shaw Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04
Authors: Matthias Rief; Marcus Y Chen; Andrea L Vavere; Benjamin Kendziora; Julie M Miller; W Patricia Bandettini; Christopher Cox; Richard T George; João Lima; Marcelo Di Carli; Michail Plotkin; Elke Zimmermann; Michael Laule; Peter Schlattmann; Andrew E Arai; Marc Dewey Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A M Bucher; C N De Cecco; U J Schoepf; R Wang; F G Meinel; S R Binukrishnan; J V Spearman; T J Vogl; B Ruzsics Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 3.039