OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient acceptance of noninvasive imaging tests for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD), including single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI), stress perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), coronary CT angiography (CTA) in combination with CT myocardial stress perfusion (CTP), and conventional coronary angiography (CCA). METHODS: Intraindividual comparison of perception of 48 patients from the CORE320 multicentre multinational study who underwentrest and stress SPECT-MPI with a technetium-based tracer, combined CTA and CTP (both with contrast agent, CTP with adenosine), MRI, and CCA. The analysis was performed by using a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients had significantly more concern prior to CCA than before CTA/CTP (p < 0.001). CTA/CTP was also rated as more comfortable than SPECT-MPI (p = 0.001). Overall satisfaction with CT was superior to that of MRI (p = 0.007). More patients preferred CT (46%; p < 0.001) as a future diagnostic test. Regarding combined CTA/CTP, CTP was characterised by higher pain levels and an increased frequency of angina pectoris during the examination (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed a higher degree of pain during SPECT-MPI with adenosine stress compared to physical exercise (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: All noninvasive cardiac imaging tests are well accepted by patients, with CT being the preferred examination. KEY POINTS: • A variety of cardiac imaging tests is available without known patient preference • CTA/CTP shows a lower degree of concern than conventional coronary angiography • CTA/CTP shows higher overall satisfaction compared to stress perfusion magnetic resonance imaging • CTA/CTP is rated as more comfortable than SPECT-MPI • CTA/CTP is the preferred cardiac imaging test.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient acceptance of noninvasive imaging tests for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD), including single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI), stress perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), coronary CT angiography (CTA) in combination with CT myocardial stress perfusion (CTP), and conventional coronary angiography (CCA). METHODS: Intraindividual comparison of perception of 48 patients from the CORE320 multicentre multinational study who underwent rest and stress SPECT-MPI with a technetium-based tracer, combined CTA and CTP (both with contrast agent, CTP with adenosine), MRI, and CCA. The analysis was performed by using a validated questionnaire. RESULTS:Patients had significantly more concern prior to CCA than before CTA/CTP (p < 0.001). CTA/CTP was also rated as more comfortable than SPECT-MPI (p = 0.001). Overall satisfaction with CT was superior to that of MRI (p = 0.007). More patients preferred CT (46%; p < 0.001) as a future diagnostic test. Regarding combined CTA/CTP, CTP was characterised by higher pain levels and an increased frequency of angina pectoris during the examination (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed a higher degree of pain during SPECT-MPI with adenosine stress compared to physical exercise (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: All noninvasive cardiac imaging tests are well accepted by patients, with CT being the preferred examination. KEY POINTS: • A variety of cardiac imaging tests is available without known patient preference • CTA/CTP shows a lower degree of concern than conventional coronary angiography • CTA/CTP shows higher overall satisfaction compared to stress perfusion magnetic resonance imaging • CTA/CTP is rated as more comfortable than SPECT-MPI • CTA/CTP is the preferred cardiac imaging test.
Authors: Andrea L Vavere; Gregory G Simon; Richard T George; Carlos E Rochitte; Andrew E Arai; Julie M Miller; Marcello Di Carli; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Armin A Zadeh; Marc Dewey; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Roger Laham; Frank J Rybicki; Joanne D Schuijf; Narinder Paul; John Hoe; Sachio Kuribyashi; Hajime Sakuma; Cesar Nomura; Tan Swee Yaw; Klaus F Kofoed; Kunihiro Yoshioka; Melvin E Clouse; Jeffrey Brinker; Christopher Cox; Joao A C Lima Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2011-11-12
Authors: Arthur Nasis; Brian S Ko; Michael C Leung; Paul R Antonis; Dee Nandurkar; Dennis T Wong; Leo Kyi; James D Cameron; John M Troupis; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Richard T George; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Rodrigo J Cerci; Andrea L Vavere; Kakuya Kitagawa; Marc Dewey; Carlos E Rochitte; Andrew E Arai; Narinder Paul; Frank J Rybicki; Albert C Lardo; Melvin E Clouse; Joao A C Lima Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Arthur Nasis; Michael C Leung; Paul R Antonis; James D Cameron; Sam J Lehman; Sarah A Hope; Marcus P Crossett; John M Troupis; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Carlos E Rochitte; Richard T George; Marcus Y Chen; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Marc Dewey; Julie M Miller; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Kunihiro Yoshioka; Kakuya Kitagawa; Shiro Nakamori; Roger Laham; Andrea L Vavere; Rodrigo J Cerci; Vishal C Mehra; Cesar Nomura; Klaus F Kofoed; Masahiro Jinzaki; Sachio Kuribayashi; Albert de Roos; Michael Laule; Swee Yaw Tan; John Hoe; Narinder Paul; Frank J Rybicki; Jeffery A Brinker; Andrew E Arai; Christopher Cox; Melvin E Clouse; Marcelo F Di Carli; Joao A C Lima Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Bryn E Mumma; Brigitte M Baumann; Deborah B Diercks; Kevin M Takakuwa; Caren F Campbell; Frances S Shofer; Anna Marie Chang; Molly K Jones; Judd E Hollander Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Marcelo F Di Carli; Sharmila Dorbala; Zelmira Curillova; Raymond J Kwong; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Frank J Rybicki; Rory Hachamovitch Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Fleur R de Graaf; Joanne D Schuijf; Joëlla E van Velzen; Lucia J Kroft; Albert de Roos; Johannes H C Reiber; Eric Boersma; Martin J Schalij; Fabrizio Spanó; J Wouter Jukema; Ernst E van der Wall; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Andrew J Einstein; Daniel S Berman; James K Min; Robert C Hendel; Thomas C Gerber; J Jeffrey Carr; Manuel D Cerqueira; S James Cullom; Robert DeKemp; Neal W Dickert; Sharmila Dorbala; Reza Fazel; Ernest V Garcia; Raymond J Gibbons; Sandra S Halliburton; Jörg Hausleiter; Gary V Heller; Scott Jerome; John R Lesser; Gilbert L Raff; Peter Tilkemeier; Kim A Williams; Leslee J Shaw Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael D Repplinger; Annabel J Li; James E Svenson; William J Ehlenbach; Ryan P Westergaard; Scott B Reeder; Elizabeth A Jacobs Journal: WMJ Date: 2016-02
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: Michelle C Williams; Amanda Hunter; Anoop Shah; Valentina Assi; Stephanie Lewis; Kenneth Mangion; Colin Berry; Nicholas A Boon; Elizabeth Clark; Marcus Flather; John Forbes; Scott McLean; Giles Roditi; Edwin Jr van Beek; Adam D Timmis; David E Newby Journal: Heart Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Michelle C Williams; Saeed Mirsadraee; Marc R Dweck; Nicholas W Weir; Alison Fletcher; Christophe Lucatelli; Tom MacGillivray; Saroj K Golay; Nicholas L Cruden; Peter A Henriksen; Neal Uren; Graham McKillop; João A C Lima; John H Reid; Edwin J R van Beek; Dilip Patel; David E Newby Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 5.315