Literature DB >> 27771227

Diagnostic Accuracy of Noninvasive 64-row Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography (CCTA) Compared with Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI): The PICTURE Study, A Prospective Multicenter Trial.

Matthew J Budoff1, Dong Li2, Ella A Kazerooni3, Gregory S Thomas4, Jennifer H Mieres5, Leslee J Shaw6.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Although multiple studies have shown excellent accuracy statistics for noninvasive angiography by coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA), most studies comparing nuclear imaging to CCTA were performed on patients already referred for cardiac catheterization, introducing referral and selection bias. This prospective trial evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 64-row CCTA to detect obstructive coronary stenosis compared to myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) as a reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve sites prospectively enrolled 230 patients (49% male, 57.8 years) with chest pain. All patients underwent MPI and CCTA (Lightspeed VCT/Visipaque 320, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA) prior to invasive coronary angiography (ICA). All patients were evaluated, and those found to have either an abnormal MPI or CCTA were clinically referred for ICA. CCTAs were graded on a 15-segment American Heart Association model by three blinded readers for presence of obstructive stenosis (>50% or >70%); MPI was graded by two blinded readers using a 17-segment model for estimation of the % myocardium ischemic or with stress defects. ICAs were independently graded for % stenosis by QCA. The efficacies of MPI and CCTA were assessed including all vessel segments for per-patient and per-vessel analyses.
RESULTS: The prevalence of stenosis ≥50% by ICA was 52.1% (25 of 48). The sensitivity of CCTA was significantly higher than nuclear imaging (92.0% vs 54.5%, P < 0.001), with similar specificity (87.0% vs 78.3%) when obstructive disease was defined as ≥50%. CCTA provided superior sensitivity (92.6% vs 59.3%, P < 0.001) and similar specificity (88.9% vs 81.5%) using QCA stenosis ≥70%. For ≥50% stenosis, the computed tomographic angiography odds ratio for ICA disease was 51.75 (95% CI = 8.50-314.94, P < 0.001). For summed stress score ≥5%, the odds ratio for ICA CAD was 12.73 (95% CI = 2.43-66.55, P < 0.001). Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, CCTA was better at classifying obstructive coronary artery disease when compared to MPI (area = 0.85 vs 0.71, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents one of the first prospective multicenter, controlled clinical trials comparing 64-row CCTA to MPI in the same patients, demonstrating superior diagnostic accuracy of CCTA over myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (MPS) to reliably detect >50% and >70% stenosis in stable chest pain patients. Copyright Â
© 2017 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coronary CT Angiography; comparative studies; diagnostic accuracy; myocardial perfusion imaging

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27771227     DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  14 in total

1.  Prognostic Value of Coronary Artery Calcium in the PROMISE Study (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain).

Authors:  Matthew J Budoff; Thomas Mayrhofer; Maros Ferencik; Daniel Bittner; Kerry L Lee; Michael T Lu; Adrian Coles; James Jang; Mayil Krishnam; Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Anatomy and physiology in coronary artery disease imaging.

Authors:  Filippo Cademartiri; Erica Maffei
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 3.  Recent Advances in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiogram: The Ultimate Tool for Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Luay Alalawi; Matthew J Budoff
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 5.967

Review 4.  The Role of Cardiac Computed Tomography in Heart Failure.

Authors:  Spencer S Kitchin; Venkat Sanjay Manubolu; Sion K Roy; Matthew J Budoff
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2022-05-19

5.  Coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography: medical staff perceptions and diagnostic interest in Gaza-Palestine.

Authors:  Husam H Mansour; Yasser S Alajerami; Ahmed A Najim
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 1.568

6.  Stress testing and non-invasive coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: time for a new paradigm.

Authors:  Armin Arbab-Zadeh
Journal:  Heart Int       Date:  2012-02-08

7.  Leukemic Ischemia: A Case of Myocardial Infarction Secondary to Leukemic Cardiac Involvement.

Authors:  Dzmitry Fursevich; Colin Zuchowski; Joseph Limback; Melissa Kendall; Ashley Ramirez; Naim Fanaian; Jeremy Burt
Journal:  Case Rep Cardiol       Date:  2017-08-07

8.  The validity and applicability of CAD-RADS in the management of patients with coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha; Sameh Abdelaziz Aly; Ahmad Abdel Azim Ismail; Hanan A Bahaaeldin; Samar Mohamad Shehata
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2019-12-04

Review 9.  Myocardial Assessment with Cardiac CT: Ischemic Heart Disease and Beyond.

Authors:  Bryan C Ramsey; Emilio Fentanes; Andrew D Choi; Kelley R Branch; Dustin M Thomas
Journal:  Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep       Date:  2018-06-02

10.  Diagnostic yield and accuracy of coronary CT angiography after abnormal nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf; Jacob C Townsend; Brian A Flowers; Lucas L Geyer; Ullrich Ebersberger; Aleksander W Krazinski; Wolfgang G Kunz; Kolja M Thierfelder; Deborah W Baker; Ashan M Khan; Valerian L Fernandes; Terrence X O'Brien
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.