Ijaz G Ahmad1, Raushan K Abdulla1, Igor Klem2,3, Roman Margulis1, Alexander Ivanov1, Ambreen Mohamed1, Robert M Judd2,3, Salvatore Borges-Neto4, Raymond J Kim2,3, John F Heitner5,6,7. 1. Department of Cardiology, New York Methodist Hospital, 506 6th Street, Brooklyn, NY, USA. 2. Duke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Duke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. john.heitner@gmail.com. 6. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. john.heitner@gmail.com. 7. Department of Cardiology, New York Methodist Hospital, 506 6th Street, Brooklyn, NY, USA. john.heitner@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (stress CMR) vs stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain. BACKGROUND: SPECT imaging is the most utilized outpatient procedure in the United States. The diagnostic accuracy of SPECT can be limited by soft tissue attenuation and low spatial resolution. Stress CMR has much higher spatial resolution and without the susceptibility to soft tissue attenuation. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients without a history of CAD presenting to the ED with chest pain were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent both stress CMR and stress SPECT imaging within 12 hours of presentation. Both the stress imaging tests were interpreted immediately for clinical purposes and coronary angiography was performed if either was abnormal. Patients were considered to have significant CAD if identified by angiography (≥50%) or if a cardiac event (cardiac death, myocardial infarction or revascularization) occurred during follow-up (mean 2.6 ± 1.1 years). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were referred for coronary angiography; 29 due to a positive stress test and eight patients for persistent chest pain despite two negative stress tests. There were 22 patients who had significant CAD (≥50%). The remaining patients were followed for 2.6 ± 1.1 years. At the conclusion of the follow-up period, there were four clinical events. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CMR are 85%, 93%, and 89%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of stress SPECT are 84%, 91%, and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Stress CMR has similar diagnostic accuracy as stress SPECT in diagnosis of CAD.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (stress CMR) vs stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain. BACKGROUND: SPECT imaging is the most utilized outpatient procedure in the United States. The diagnostic accuracy of SPECT can be limited by soft tissue attenuation and low spatial resolution. Stress CMR has much higher spatial resolution and without the susceptibility to soft tissue attenuation. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients without a history of CAD presenting to the ED with chest pain were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent both stress CMR and stress SPECT imaging within 12 hours of presentation. Both the stress imaging tests were interpreted immediately for clinical purposes and coronary angiography was performed if either was abnormal. Patients were considered to have significant CAD if identified by angiography (≥50%) or if a cardiac event (cardiac death, myocardial infarction or revascularization) occurred during follow-up (mean 2.6 ± 1.1 years). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were referred for coronary angiography; 29 due to a positive stress test and eight patients for persistent chest pain despite two negative stress tests. There were 22 patients who had significant CAD (≥50%). The remaining patients were followed for 2.6 ± 1.1 years. At the conclusion of the follow-up period, there were four clinical events. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CMR are 85%, 93%, and 89%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of stress SPECT are 84%, 91%, and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Stress CMR has similar diagnostic accuracy as stress SPECT in diagnosis of CAD.
Authors: R E Stewart; M Schwaiger; E Molina; J Popma; G M Gacioch; M Kalus; S Squicciarini; Z R al-Aouar; A Schork; D E Kuhl Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1991-06-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Todd D Miller; David O Hodge; Timothy F Christian; James J Milavetz; Kent R Bailey; Raymond J Gibbons Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert Adams; Mercedes Carnethon; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Katherine Flegal; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Yuling Hong Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T H Giang; D Nanz; R Coulden; M Friedrich; M Graves; N Al-Saadi; T F Lüscher; G K von Schulthess; J Schwitter Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Reza Fazel; Harlan M Krumholz; Yongfei Wang; Joseph S Ross; Jersey Chen; Henry H Ting; Nilay D Shah; Khurram Nasir; Andrew J Einstein; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shazia T Hussain; Matthias Paul; Sven Plein; Gerry P McCann; Ajay M Shah; Michael S Marber; Amedeo Chiribiri; Geraint Morton; Simon Redwood; Philip MacCarthy; Andreas Schuster; Masaki Ishida; Mark A Westwood; Divaka Perera; Eike Nagel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: David P Ripley; Julia M Brown; Colin C Everett; Petra Bijsterveld; Simon Walker; Mark Sculpher; Gerry P McCann; Colin Berry; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Melanie Ziegler; Karen Alt; Brett M Paterson; Peter Kanellakis; Alex Bobik; Paul S Donnelly; Christoph E Hagemeyer; Karlheinz Peter Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 4.379