Literature DB >> 28956734

Coronary Artery Disease: Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of CT Perfusion and MR Perfusion Imaging in Comparison with Quantitative Coronary Angiography and SPECT-Multicenter Prospective Trial.

Matthias Rief1, Marcus Y Chen1, Andrea L Vavere1, Benjamin Kendziora1, Julie M Miller1, W Patricia Bandettini1, Christopher Cox1, Richard T George1, João Lima1, Marcelo Di Carli1, Michail Plotkin1, Elke Zimmermann1, Michael Laule1, Peter Schlattmann1, Andrew E Arai1, Marc Dewey1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of stress myocardial computed tomography (CT) perfusion with that of stress myocardial magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). Materials and Methods All patients gave written informed consent prior to inclusion in this institutional review board-approved study. This two-center substudy of the prospective Combined Noninvasive Coronary Angiography and Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using 320-Detector Row Computed Tomography (CORE320) multicenter trial included 92 patients (mean age, 63.1 years ± 8.1 [standard deviation]; 73% male). All patients underwent perfusion CT and perfusion MR imaging with either adenosine or regadenoson stress. The predefined reference standards were combined quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and single-photon emission CT (SPECT) or QCA alone. Results from coronary CT angiography were not included, and diagnostic performance was evaluated with the Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease status. Results The prevalence of CAD was 39% (36 of 92) according to QCA and SPECT and 64% (59 of 92) according to QCA alone. When compared with QCA and SPECT, per-patient diagnostic accuracy of perfusion CT and perfusion MR imaging was 63% (58 of 92) and 75% (69 of 92), respectively (P = .11); sensitivity was 92% (33 of 36) and 83% (30 of 36), respectively (P = .45); and specificity was 45% (25 of 56) and 70% (39 of 56), respectively (P < .01). When compared with QCA alone, diagnostic accuracy of CT perfusion and MR perfusion imaging was 82% (75 of 92) and 74% (68 of 92), respectively (P = .27); sensitivity was 90% (53 of 59) and 69% (41 of 59), respectively (P < .01); and specificity was 67% (22 of 33) and 82% (27 of 33), respectively (P = .27). Conclusion This multicenter study shows that the diagnostic performance of perfusion CT is similar to that of perfusion MR imaging in the detection of CAD. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28956734      PMCID: PMC5790301          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162447

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  34 in total

Review 1.  Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association.

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

2.  Radiation exposure to patients in a multicenter coronary angiography trial (CORE 64).

Authors:  Jacob Geleijns; Raoul M S Joemai; Marc Dewey; Albert de Roos; Maria Zankl; Alfonso Calzado Cantera; Marçal Salvadó Artells
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease.

Authors:  William F Fearon; Bernhard Bornschein; Pim A L Tonino; Raffaella M Gothe; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Uwe Siebert
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-11-29       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 4.  Computed tomography coronary angiography.

Authors:  Stephan Achenbach
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Myocardium: dynamic versus single-shot CT perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Armin M Huber; Vivian Leber; Bettina M Gramer; Daniela Muenzel; Alexander Leber; Johannes Rieber; Martin Schmidt; Mani Vembar; Ellen Hoffmann; Ernst Rummeny
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-MDCT: the CT angiography and perfusion methods of the CORE320 multicenter multinational diagnostic study.

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

7.  MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial.

Authors:  Juerg Schwitter; Christian M Wacker; Norbert Wilke; Nidal Al-Saadi; Ekkehart Sauer; Kalman Huettle; Stefan O Schönberg; Andreas Luchner; Oliver Strohm; Hakan Ahlstrom; Thorsten Dill; Nadja Hoebel; Tamas Simor
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-03-04       Impact factor: 29.983

8.  Computed tomography angiography and perfusion to assess coronary artery stenosis causing perfusion defects by single photon emission computed tomography: the CORE320 study.

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

Review 9.  Influence of coronary artery disease prevalence on predictive values of coronary CT angiography: a meta-regression analysis.

Authors:  Peter Schlattmann; Georg M Schuetz; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Incremental value of adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging with dual-source CT at cardiac CT angiography.

Authors:  Jose A Rocha-Filho; Ron Blankstein; Leonid D Shturman; Hiram G Bezerra; David R Okada; Ian S Rogers; Brian Ghoshhajra; Udo Hoffmann; Gudrun Feuchtner; Wilfred S Mamuya; Thomas J Brady; Ricardo C Cury
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  5 in total

1.  Noise reduction and motion elimination in low-dose 4D myocardial computed tomography perfusion (CTP): preliminary clinical evaluation of the ASTRA4D algorithm.

Authors:  Steffen Lukas; Sarah Feger; Matthias Rief; Elke Zimmermann; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: A Brief Review of Nuclear and Nonnuclear Techniques and Comparative Evaluation of Recent Advances.

Authors:  Manish Ora; Sanjay Gambhir
Journal:  Indian J Nucl Med       Date:  2019 Oct-Dec

Review 3.  Spectrum of clinical applications of interlead ECG heterogeneity assessment: From myocardial ischemia detection to sudden cardiac death risk stratification.

Authors:  Richard L Verrier; Bruce D Nearing; Andre D'Avila
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 4.  The role of cardiac computed tomography in predicting adverse coronary events.

Authors:  Maria Emfietzoglou; Michail C Mavrogiannis; Athanasios Samaras; Georgios P Rampidis; George Giannakoulas; Polydoros N Kampaktsis
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-07-15

5.  Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia.

Authors:  Marc Dewey; Maria Siebes; Marc Kachelrieß; Klaus F Kofoed; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Konstantin Nikolaou; Wenjia Bai; Andreas Kofler; Robert Manka; Sebastian Kozerke; Amedeo Chiribiri; Tobias Schaeffter; Florian Michallek; Frank Bengel; Stephan Nekolla; Paul Knaapen; Mark Lubberink; Roxy Senior; Meng-Xing Tang; Jan J Piek; Tim van de Hoef; Johannes Martens; Laura Schreiber
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 32.419

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.