Low to intermediate probability of coronary artery disease: Comparison of coronary CT angiography with first-pass MR myocardial perfusion imaging

Radiology

Volumn 254, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 384-392

  Groothuis, Jan G J ^a,b,c   Beek, Aernout M ^a,b   Brinckman, Stijn L ^a,b   Meijerink, Martijn R ^a   Koestner, Simon C ^a   Nijveldt, Robin ^a,b,c   Götte, Marco J W ^a,b   Hofman, Mark B M ^a,b   Van Kuijk, Cornelis ^a   Van Rossum, Albert C ^a,b,c  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c ROYAL NETHERLANDS ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; IOPROMIDE; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; DRUG DERIVATIVE; IOHEXOL;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; FEMALE; HEART MUSCLE ISCHEMIA; HEART MUSCLE PERFUSION; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STENOSIS; THORAX PAIN; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTIFACT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ARTIFACTS; CHEST PAIN; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CONTRAST MEDIA; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY DISEASE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IOHEXOL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77449143428     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090802     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY(Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52(21):1724-1732.
2. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, Van Mieghem CA, et al. High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation 2005;112(15):2318-2323.
3. Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52(25):2135-2144.
4. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H, et al. Incremental prognostic value of adenosine stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography and impact on subsequent management in patients with or suspected of having myocardial ischemia. Am J Cardiol 1997;80(4):426-433.
5. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw L J, et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998;97(6):535-543.
6. Al-Saadi N, Nagel E, Gross M, et al. Non-invasive detection of myocardial ischemia from perfusion reserve based on cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circulation 2000;101(12):1379-1383.
7. Schwitter J, Nanz D, Kneifel S, et al. Assessment of myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance: a comparison with positron emission tomography and coronary angiography. Circulation 2001;103(18):2230- 2235.
8. Barmeyer AA, Stork A, Muellerleile K, et al. Comparison of quantitative coronary angiography and first-pass perfusion magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of an impaired coronary perfusion in non-severe coronary stenosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;27(5):1005-1011.
9. Costa MA, Shoemaker S, Futamatsu H, et al. Quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging detects anatomic and physiologic coronary artery disease as measured by coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50(6):514-522.
10. Kuhl HP, Katoh M, Buhr C, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance perfusion imaging versus invasive fractional flow reserve for assessment of the hemodynamic significance of epicardial coronary artery stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2007;99(8):1090-1095.
11. Kurita T, Sakuma H, Onishi K, et al. Regional myocardial perfusion reserve determined using myocardial perfusion magnetic resonance imaging showed a direct correlation with coronary flow velocity reserve by Doppler flow wire. Eur Heart J 2009;30(4):444-452.
12. Giang TH, Nanz D, Coulden R, et al. Detection of coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging with various contrast medium doses: first European multi-centre experience. Eur Heart J 2004;25(18):1657- 1665.
13. Panting JR, Gatehouse PD, Yang GZ, et al. Abnormal subendocardial perfusion in cardiac syndrome X detected by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. N Engl J Med 2002;346(25):1948-1953.
14. Futamatsu H, Klassen C, Pilla M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative cardiac MRI evaluation compared to stress single-photon-emission computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;24(3):293-299.
15. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, et al. MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2008;29(4):480-489.
16. Jahnke C, Nagel E, Gebker R, et al. Prognostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance stress tests: adenosine stress perfusion and dobutamine stress wall motion imaging. Circulation 2007;115(13):1769-1776.
17. Chaitman BR, Bourassa MG, Davis K, et al. Angiographic prevalence of high-risk coronary artery disease in patient subsets (CASS). Circulation 1981;64(2):360-367.
18. Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979;300(24):1350- 1358.
19. Gibbons RJ, Chatterjee K, Daley J, et al. ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines(Committee on Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33(7):2092-2197.
20. Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL, et al. A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association. Circulation 1975;51(4 suppl):5-40.
21. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, et al. 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. Circulation 2002;105(4):539-542.
22. Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17(8):857-872.
23. Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Valenta I, et al. Functionally relevant coronary artery disease: comparison of 64-section CT angiography with myocardial perfusion SPECT. Radiology 2008;248(2):414-423.
24. Hacker M, Jakobs T, Hack N, et al. Sixty-four slice spiral CT angiography does not predict the functional relevance of coronary artery stenoses in patients with stable angina. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34(1):4-10.
25. Schuijf JD, Wijns W, Jukema JW, et al. Relationship between noninvasive coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography and myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48(12):2508-2514.
26. Sato A, Hiroe M, Tamura M, et al. Quantitative measures of coronary stenosis severity by 64-slice CT angiography and relation to physiologic significance of perfusion in nonobese patients: comparison with stress myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med 2008;49(4):564-572.
27. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007;116(11):1290-1305.
28. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007;298(3):317-323.
29. Rispler S, Keidar Z, Ghersin E, et al. Integrated single-photon emission computed tomography and computed tomography coronary angiography for the assessment of hemodynamically significant coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49(10):1059-1067.
30. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Burkhard N, et al. Accuracy of low-dose computed tomography coronary angiography using prospective electrocardiogram-triggering: first clinical experience. Eur Heart J 2008;29(24):3037-3042.
31. Futamatsu H, Wilke N, Klassen C, et al. Evaluation of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging parameters to detect anatomically and hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 2007;154(2):298-305.