OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion dual-energy CT (DECT) and its incremental value when used with coronary CT angiography (CTA) for identifying hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease without chronic myocardial infarction detected with coronary CTA underwent stress perfusion DECT, stress cardiovascular perfusion MRI, and invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Stress perfusion DECT and cardiovascular stress perfusion MR images were used for detecting perfusion defects. Coronary CTA and ICA were evaluated in the detection of ≥50% coronary stenosis. The diagnostic performance of coronary CTA for detecting hemo-dynamically significant stenosis was assessed before and after stress perfusion DECT on a per-vessel basis with ICA and cardiovascular stress perfusion MRI as the reference standard. RESULTS: The performance of stress perfusion DECT compared with cardiovascular stress perfusion MRI on a per-vessel basis in the detection of perfusion defects was sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 74%; positive predictive value, 73%; negative predictive value, 90%. Per segment, these values were sensitivity, 76%; specificity, 80%; positive predictive value, 63%; and negative predictive value, 88%. Compared with ICA and cardiovascular stress perfusion MRI per vessel territory the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of coronary CTA were 95%, 61%, 61%, and 95%. The values for stress perfusion DECT were 92%, 72%, 68%, and 94%. The values for coronary CTA and stress perfusion DECT were 88%, 79%, 73%, and 91%. The ROC AUC increased from 0.78 to 0.84 (p=0.02) with the use of coronary CTA and stress perfusion DECT compared with coronary CTA alone. CONCLUSION: Stress perfusion DECT plays a complementary role in enhancing the accuracy of coronary CTA for identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion dual-energy CT (DECT) and its incremental value when used with coronary CT angiography (CTA) for identifying hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease without chronic myocardial infarction detected with coronary CTA underwent stress perfusion DECT, stress cardiovascular perfusion MRI, and invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Stress perfusion DECT and cardiovascular stress perfusion MR images were used for detecting perfusion defects. Coronary CTA and ICA were evaluated in the detection of ≥50% coronary stenosis. The diagnostic performance of coronary CTA for detecting hemo-dynamically significant stenosis was assessed before and after stress perfusion DECT on a per-vessel basis with ICA and cardiovascular stress perfusion MRI as the reference standard. RESULTS: The performance of stress perfusion DECT compared with cardiovascular stress perfusion MRI on a per-vessel basis in the detection of perfusion defects was sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 74%; positive predictive value, 73%; negative predictive value, 90%. Per segment, these values were sensitivity, 76%; specificity, 80%; positive predictive value, 63%; and negative predictive value, 88%. Compared with ICA and cardiovascular stress perfusion MRI per vessel territory the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of coronary CTA were 95%, 61%, 61%, and 95%. The values for stress perfusion DECT were 92%, 72%, 68%, and 94%. The values for coronary CTA and stress perfusion DECT were 88%, 79%, 73%, and 91%. The ROC AUC increased from 0.78 to 0.84 (p=0.02) with the use of coronary CTA and stress perfusion DECT compared with coronary CTA alone. CONCLUSION: Stress perfusion DECT plays a complementary role in enhancing the accuracy of coronary CTA for identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis.
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: 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: Oliver Gaemperli; Tiziano Schepis; Ines Valenta; Lars Husmann; Hans Scheffel; Victor Duerst; Franz R Eberli; Thomas F Luscher; Hatem Alkadhi; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hatem Alkadhi; Hans Scheffel; Lotus Desbiolles; Oliver Gaemperli; Paul Stolzmann; André Plass; Gerhard W Goerres; Thomas F Luescher; Michele Genoni; Borut Marincek; Philipp A Kaufmann; Sebastian Leschka Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Kiran R Nandalur; Ben A Dwamena; Asim F Choudhri; Mohan R Nandalur; Ruth C Carlos Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Oliver Gaemperli; Tiziano Schepis; Ines Valenta; Pascal Koepfli; Lars Husmann; Hans Scheffel; Sebastian Leschka; Franz R Eberli; Thomas F Luscher; Hatem Alkadhi; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-06-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Daniel S Berman; David J Maron; G B John Mancini; Sean W Hayes; Pamela M Hartigan; William S Weintraub; Robert A O'Rourke; Marcin Dada; John A Spertus; Bernard R Chaitman; John Friedman; Piotr Slomka; Gary V Heller; Guido Germano; Gilbert Gosselin; Peter Berger; William J Kostuk; Ronald G Schwartz; Merill Knudtson; Emir Veledar; Eric R Bates; Benjamin McCallister; Koon K Teo; William E Boden Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Carlos Delgado Sánchez-Gracián; Roque Oca Pernas; Carmen Trinidad López; Eloísa Santos Armentia; Antonio Vaamonde Liste; María Vázquez Caamaño; Gonzalo Tardáguila de la Fuente Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Sara Seitun; Alberto Clemente; Ludovico La Grutta; Patrizia Toia; Giuseppe Runza; Massimo Midiri; Erica Maffei Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2017-04
Authors: Gert Jan Pelgrim; Robbert W van Hamersvelt; Martin J Willemink; Bernhard T Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Arnold Schilham; Julien Milles; Matthijs Oudkerk; Tim Leiner; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sara Seitun; Cecilia De Lorenzi; Filippo Cademartiri; Angelo Buscaglia; Nicole Travaglio; Manrico Balbi; Gian Paolo Bezante Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-10-14 Impact factor: 3.411