SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: A report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee

Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 342-358

  Leipsic, Jonathon ^a   Abbara, Suhny ^b   Achenbach, Stephan ^c   Cury, Ricardo ^d   Earls, James P ^e   Mancini, G B John ^a   Nieman, Koen ^f   Pontone, Gianluca ^g   Raff, Gilbert L ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

^d BAPTIST CARDIAC AND VASCULAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e Pc   (United States)

^f ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^g CENTRO CARDIOLOGICO MONZINO   (Italy)

^h WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; CARDIOLOGY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DOCUMENTATION; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; STANDARDS;

CARDIOLOGY; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DOCUMENTATION; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RADIOLOGY; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84908073285     PISSN: 19345925     EISSN: 1876861X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2014.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Austen W.G., Edwards J.E., Frye R.L., 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.
2. Califf R.M., Phillips H.R., Hindman M.C., et al. Prognostic value of a coronary artery jeopardy score. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985, 5:1055-1063.
3. Muller D.W., Topol E.J., Ellis S.G., Sigmon K.N., Lee K., Califf R.M. Multivessel coronary artery disease: a key predictor of short-term prognosis after reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Thrombolysis and Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (TAMI) Study Group. Am Heart J 1991, 121:1042-1049.
4. Goldstein J.A., Demetriou D., Grines C.L., Pica M., Shoukfeh M., O'Neill W.W. Multiple complex coronary plaques in patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:915-922.
5. Hoffmann U., Moselewski F., Nieman K., et al. Noninvasive assessment of plaque morphology and composition in culprit and stable lesions in acute coronary syndrome and stable lesions in stable angina by multidetector computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:1655-1662.
6. Leber A.W., Knez A., Becker A., et al. Visualising noncalcified coronary plaques by CT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2005, 21:55-61.
7. Lin F., Shaw L.J., Berman D.S., et al. Multidetector computed tomography coronary artery plaque predictors of stress-induced myocardial ischemia by SPECT. Atherosclerosis 2008, 197:700-709.
8. Schmid M., Pflederer T., Jang I.K., et al. Relationship between degree of remodeling and CT attenuation of plaque in coronary atherosclerotic lesions: an in-vivo analysis by multi-detector computed tomography. Atherosclerosis 2008, 197:457-464.
9. Schuijf J.D., Beck T., Burgstahler C., et al. Differences in plaque composition and distribution in stable coronary artery disease versus acute coronary syndromes; non-invasive evaluation with multi-slice computed tomography. Acute Card Care 2007, 9:48-53.
10. Kaplan S., Aronow W.S., Ahn C., et al. Prevalence of an increased ascending thoracic aorta diameter diagnosed by two-dimensional echocardiography versus 64-multislice cardiac computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 2008, 101:119-121.
11. Castorina S., Riccioli V. Heart, aorta, peripheral and supra aortic trunks imaging realized by MSCT 64. Our experience. Ital J Anat Embryol 2007, 112:131-143.
12. Cook S.C., Raman S.V. Unique application of multislice computed tomography in adults with congenital heart disease. Int J Cardiol 2007, 119:101-106.
13. Yiginer O., Bas S., Pocan S., Yildiz A., Alibek S. Incidental findings of cardiac MSCT: who might benefit from scanning the entire thorax on Ca score imaging?. Int J Cardiol 2010, 140:239-241.
14. Dewey M., Muller M., Eddicks S., et al. Evaluation of global and regional left ventricular function with 16-slice computed tomography, biplane cineventriculography, and two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 48:2034-2044.
15. Roberts W.T., Bax J.J., Davies L.C. Cardiac CT and CT coronary angiography: technology and application. Heart 2008, 94:781-792.
16. Sarin S., Wenger C., Marwaha A., et al. Clinical significance of epicardial fat measured using cardiac multislice computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 2008, 102:767-771.
17. Henneman M.M., Schuijf J.D., Dibbets-Schneider P., et al. Comparison of multislice computed tomography to gated single-photon emission computed tomography for imaging of healed myocardial infarcts. Am J Cardiol 2008, 101:144-148.
18. Brodoefel H., Reimann A., Klumpp B., et al. Sixty-four-slice CT in the assessment of global and regional left ventricular function: comparison with MRI in a porcine model of acute and subacute myocardial infarction. Eur Radiol 2007, 17:2948-2956.
19. Habis M., Capderou A., Ghostine S., et al. Acute myocardial infarction early viability assessment by 64-slice computed tomography immediately after coronary angiography: comparison with low-dose dobutamine echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007, 49:1178-1185.
20. Ryan R., Abbara S., Colen R.R., et al. Cardiac valve disease: spectrum of findings on cardiac 64-MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 190:W294-303.
21. Lemola K., Sneider M., Desjardins B., et al. Computed tomographic analysis of the anatomy of the left atrium and the esophagus: implications for left atrial catheter ablation. Circulation 2004, 110:3655-3660.
22. Kramer C.M., Budoff M.J., Fayad Z.A., et al. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical competence statement on vascular imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007, 50:1097-1114.
23. Beller G.A., Bonow R.O., Fuster V. ACCF 2008 recommendations for training in adult cardiovascular medicine core cardiology training (COCATS 3) (revision of the 2002 COCATS Training Statement). J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 51:335-338.
24. Weinreb J.C., Larson P.A., Woodard P.K., et al. American College of Radiology clinical statement on noninvasive cardiac imaging. Radiology 2005, 235:723-727.
25. Budoff M.J., Cohen M.C., Garcia M.J., et al. ACCF/AHA clinical competence statement on cardiac imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 46:383-402.
26. Beller G.A. A proposal for an advanced cardiovascular imaging training track. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 48:1299-1303.
27. Achenbach S., Ropers D., Kuettner A., et al. Contrast-enhanced coronary artery visualization by dual-source computed tomography-initial experience. Eur J Radiol 2006, 57:331-335.
28. Bluemke D.A., Achenbach S., Budoff M., et al. Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: magnetic resonance angiography and multidetector computed tomography angiography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association committee on cardiovascular imaging and intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young. Circulation 2008, 118:586-606.
29. Flohr T., Kuttner A., Bruder H., et al. Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system with 16-slice detector and increased gantry rotation speed for isotropic submillimeter imaging of the heart. Herz 2003, 28:7-19.
30. Halliburton S.S., Stillman A.E., Flohr T., et al. Do segmented reconstruction algorithms for cardiac multi-slice computed tomography improve image quality?. Herz 2003, 28:20-31.
31. Ohnesorge B., Flohr T., Becker C., et al. Cardiac imaging by means of electrocardiographically gated multisection spiral CT: initial experience. Radiology 2000, 217:564-571.
32. Ropers D., Baum U., Pohle K., et al. Detection of coronary artery stenoses with thin-slice multi-detector row spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction. Circulation 2003, 107:664-666.
33. Giesler T., Baum U., Ropers D., et al. Noninvasive visualization of coronary arteries using contrast-enhanced multidetector CT: influence of heart rate on image quality and stenosis detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 179:911-916.
34. Cademartiri F., Mollet N., Lemos P.A., et al. Standard versus user-interactive assessment of significant coronary stenoses with multislice computed tomography coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol 2004, 94:1590-1593.
35. Vogl T.J., Abolmaali N.D., Diebold T., et al. Techniques for the detection of coronary atherosclerosis: multi-detector row CT coronary angiography. Radiology 2002, 223:212-220.
36. Kerl J.M., Hofmann L.K., Thilo C., Vogl T.J., Costello P., Schoepf U.J. Coronary CTA: image acquisition and interpretation. J Thorac Imaging 2007, 22:22-34.
37. Lu B., Dai R.P., Jiang S.L., et al. Effects of window and threshold levels on the accuracy of three-dimensional rendering techniques in coronary artery electron-beam CT angiography. Acad Radiol 2001, 8:754-761.
38. Funabashi N., Kobayashi Y., Perlroth M., Rubin G.D. Coronary artery: quantitative evaluation of normal diameter determined with electron-beam CT compared with cine coronary angiography initial experience. Radiology 2003, 226:263-271.
39. Funabashi N., Kobayashi Y., Kudo M., et al. New method of measuring coronary diameter by electron-beam computed tomographic angiography using adjusted thresholds determined by calibration with aortic opacity. Circ J 2004, 68:769-777.
40. Dewey M., Schnapauff D., Laule M., et al. Multislice CT coronary angiography: evaluation of an automatic vessel detection tool. Rofo 2004, 176:478-483.
41. Ferencik M., Ropers D., Abbara S., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of image postprocessing methods for the detection of coronary artery stenoses by using multidetector CT. Radiology 2007, 243:696-702.
42. Voros S., Rivera J.J., Berman D.S., et al. Guidelines for minimizing radiation exposure during acquisition of coronary artery calcium scans with the use of multidetector computed tomography: a report by the Society for Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention Tomographic Imaging and Prevention Councils in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. JCCT 2011, 5:75-83. 43.
43. Fukjioka C., Funama Y., Kiguchi M., et al. Coronary artery calcium scoring on different 64-detector scanners using low-tube voltage (80kVp). Acad Radiol 2012, 19:1402-1407.
44. Nakazato R., Dey D., Gutstein A., et al. Coronary artery calcium scoring using a reduced tube voltage and radiation dose protocol with dual-source computed tomography. JCCT 2009, 3:394-400.
45. Deprez F.C., Vlassenbroek A., Ghaye B., Raaijmakers R., Coche E. Controversies about effects of low-kilovoltage MDCT acquisition on Agatston calcium scoring. JCCT 2013, 7:58-61.
46. Ghadri J., Goetti R., Fiechter M., et al. Inter-scan variability of coronary artery calcium scoring on 64-multidetector computed tomography vs. dual-source computed tomography: a head-to-head comparison. Eur Heart J 2011, 32:1865-1874.
47. Dey D., Nakazato R., Pimentel R., et al. Low radiation coronary calcium scoring by dual-source CT with tube current optimization based on patient body size. JCCT 2012, 6:113-120.
48. Marwan M., Mettin C., Pflederer T., et al. Very low-dose coronary artery calcium scanning with high-pitch spiral acquisition mode: comparison between 120-kV and 100-kV tube voltage protocols. JCCT 2013, 7:32-38.
49. Agatston A.S., Janowitz W.R., Hildner F.J., Zusmer N.R., Viamonte M., Detrano R. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990, 15:827-832.
50. Yaghoubi S., Tang W., Wang S., et al. Offline assessment of atherosclerotic coronary calcium from electron beam tomograms. Am J Card Imaging 1995, 9:231-236.
51. Callister T.Q., Cooil B., Raya S.P., Lippolis N.J., Russo D.J., Raggi P. Coronary artery disease: improved reproducibility of calcium scoring with an electron-beam CT volumetric method. Radiology 1998, 208:807-814.
52. Hong C., Becker C.R., Schoepf U.J., Ohnesorge B., Bruening R., Reiser M.F. Coronary artery calcium: absolute quantification in nonenhanced and contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT studies. Radiology 2002, 223:474-480.
53. Rutten A., Isgum I., Prokop M. Coronary calcification: effect of small variation of scan starting position on Agatston, volume, and mass scores. Radiology 2008, 246:90-98.
54. Rumberger J.A., Kaufman L. A Rosetta stone for coronary calcium risk stratification: Agatston, volume, and mass scores in 11,490 individuals. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 181:743-748.
55. Ebersberger U., Eilot D., Goldenberg R., et al. Fully automated derivation of coronary artery calcium scores and cardiovascular risk assessment from contrast-medium enhanced coronary CT angiography studies. Euro Radiol 2013, 23:650-657.
56. Kurata A., Dharampal A., Dedic A., et al. Impact of iterative reconstruction on CT coronary calcium quantification. Euro Radiol 2013, 23:3246-3252.
57. Otton J.M., Lonborg J.T., Boshell D., et al. A method for coronary artery calcium scoring using contrast-enhanced computed tomography. JCCT 2012, 6:37-44.
58. Mylonas I., Alam M., Amily N., et al. Quantifying coronary artery calcification from a contrast-enhanced cardiac computed tomographic angiography study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014, 15:210-215.
59. Detrano R., Guerci A., Carr J.J., et al. Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic Groups. N Engl J Med 2008, 358:1336-1345.
60. Achenbach S., Giesler T., Ropers D., et al. Comparison of image quality in contrast-enhanced coronary-artery visualization by electron beam tomography and retrospectively electrocardiogram-gated multislice spiral computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2003, 38:119-128.
61. Ferencik M., Moselewski F., Ropers D., et al. Quantitative parameters of image quality in multidetector spiral computed tomographic coronary imaging with submillimeter collimation. Am J Cardiol 2003, 92:1257-1262.
62. Wintersperger B.J., Nikolaou K., von Ziegler F., et al. Image quality, motion artifacts, and reconstruction timing of 64-slice coronary computed tomography angiography with 0.33-second rotation speed. Invest Radiol 2006, 41:436-442.
63. Weigold W.G., Abbara S., Achenbach S., et al. Standardized medical terminology for cardiac computed tomography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011, 5(3):136-144.
64. Myocardial infarction and mortality in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) randomized trial. N Engl J Med 1984, 310:750-758.
65. Budoff M.J., Dowe D., Jollis J.G., 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, 52:1724-1732.
66. Raff G.L., Gallagher M.J., O'Neill W.W., Goldstein J.A. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 46:552-557.
67. Miller J.M., Rochitte C.E., Dewey M., et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:2324-2336.
68. Achenbach S., Moselewski F., Ropers D., et al. Detection of calcified and noncalcified coronary atherosclerotic plaque by contrast-enhanced, submillimeter multidetector spiral computed tomography: a segment-based comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 2004, 109:14-17.
69. Cheng V., Gutstein A., Wolak A., et al. Moving beyond binary grading of coronary arterial stenoses on coronary computed tomographic angiography: insights for the imager and referring clinician. J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2008, 1:460-471.
70. Min J.K., Shaw L.J., Devereux R.B., et al. Prognostic value of multidetector coronary computed tomographic angiography for prediction of all-cause mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007, 50:1161.
71. Yokoyama N., Yamamoto Y., Suzuki S., et al. Impact of 16-slice computed tomography in percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006, 68:1-7.
72. Sheth T.N., Rieber J., Mooyaart E.A., et al. Usefulness of coronary computed tomographic angiography to assess suitability for revascularization in patients with significant coronary artery disease and angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 2006, 98:1198-1201.
73. von Erffa J., Ropers D., Pflederer T., et al. Differentiation of total occlusion and high-grade stenosis in coronary CT angiography. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:2770-2775.
74. Achenbach S., Moshage W., Ropers D., Nossen J., Bachmann K. Noninvasive, three-dimensional visualization of coronary artery bypass grafts by electron beam tomography. Am J Cardiol 1997, 79:856-861.
75. Ropers D., Ulzheimer S., Wenkel E., et al. Investigation of aortocoronary artery bypass grafts by multislice spiral computed tomography with electrocardiographic-gated image reconstruction. Am J Cardiol 2001, 88:792-795.
76. Lu B., Dai R.P., Zhuang N., Budoff M.J. Noninvasive assessment of coronary artery bypass graft patency and flow characteristics by electron-beam tomography. J Invasive Cardiol 2002, 14:19-24.
77. Enzweiler C.N., Wiese T.H., Petersein J., et al. Diameter changes of occluded venous coronary artery bypass grafts in electron beam tomography: preliminary findings. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003, 23:347-353.
78. Meyer T.S., Martinoff S., Hadamitzky M., et al. Improved noninvasive assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts with 64-slice computed tomographic angiography in an unselected patient population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007, 49:946-950.
79. Kruger S., Mahnken A.H., Sinha A.M., et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography for the detection of coronary stent restenosis and patency. Int J Cardiol 2003, 89:167-172.
80. Maintz D., Grude M., Fallenberg E.M., Heindel W., Fischbach R. Assessment of coronary arterial stents by multislice-CT angiography. Acta Radiol 2003, 44:597-603.
81. Van Mieghem C.A., Cademartiri F., Mollet N.R., et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography for the evaluation of stent patency after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with conventional coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 2006, 114:645-653.
82. Carbone I., Francone M., Algeri E., et al. Non-invasive evaluation of coronary artery stent patency with retrospectively ECG-gated 64-slice CT angiography. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:234-243.
83. Nakamura K., Funabashi N., Uehara M., et al. Impairment factors for evaluating the patency of drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents in coronary arteries by 64-slice computed tomography versus conventional coronary angiography. Int J Cardiol 2008, 130:349-356.
84. Oncel D., Oncel G., Tastan A., Tamci B. Evaluation of coronary stent patency and in-stent restenosis with dual-source CT coronary angiography without heart rate control. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 191:56-63.
85. Andreini D., Pontone G., Mushtaq S. Coronary in-stent restenosis: assessment with coronary CT angiography. Radiology 2012, 265(2):410-417.
86. Nieman K., Serruys P.W., Onuma Y., et al. Multislice computed tomography angiography for noninvasive assessment of the 18-month performance of a novel radiolucent bioresorbable vascular scaffolding device: the ABSORB trial (a clinical evaluation of the bioabsorbable everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions). J Am Coll Cardiol 2013, 62(19):1813-1814.
87. Serruys P.W., Ormiston J.A., Onuma Y., et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet 2009, 373(9667):897-910.
88. Mahnken A.H., Spuentrup E., Niethammer M., et al. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of left ventricular volume with ECG-gated multislice spiral CT: value of different image reconstruction algorithms in comparison to MRI. Acta Radiol 2003, 44:604-611.
89. Coche E., Vlassenbroek A., Roelants V., et al. Evaluation of biventricular ejection fraction with ECG-gated 16-slice CT: preliminary findings in acute pulmonary embolism in comparison with radionuclide ventriculography. Eur Radiol 2005, 15:1432-1440.
90. Henneman M.M., Schuijf J.D., Jukema J.W., et al. Comprehensive cardiac assessment with multislice computed tomography: evaluation of left ventricular function and perfusion in addition to coronary anatomy in patients with previous myocardial infarction. Heart 2006, 92:1779-1783.
91. Ferencik M., Gregory S.A., Butler J., et al. Analysis of cardiac dimensions, mass and function in heart transplant recipients using 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography. J Heart Lung Transpl 2007, 26:478-484.
92. Schuijf J.D., Bax J.J., Jukema J.W., et al. Assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction with 16-slice multi-slice computed tomography; comparison with 2D-echocardiography. Int J Cardiol 2007, 116:201-205.
93. Annuar B.R., Liew C.K., Chin S.P., et al. Assessment of global and regional left ventricular function using 64-slice multislice computed tomography and 2D echocardiography: a comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance. Eur J Radiol 2008, 65:112-119.
94. Greupner J., Zimmermann E., Grohmann A., et al. Head-to-head comparison of left ventricular function assessment with 64-row computed tomography, biplane left cineventriculography, and both 2- and 3-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging as the reference standard. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012, 59(21):1897-1907.
95. Maffei E., Messalli G., Martini C., et al. Left and right ventricle assessment with Cardiac CT: validation study vs. Cardiac MR. Eur Radiol 2012, 22(5):1041-1049.
96. Cury R.C., Nieman K., Shapiro M.D., et al. Comprehensive assessment of myocardial perfusion defects, regional wall motion, and left ventricular function by using 64-section multidetector CT. Radiology 2008, 248(2):466-475.
97. Lin F.Y., Devereux R.B., Roman M.J., et al. Cardiac chamber volumes, function, and mass as determined by 64-multidetector row computed tomography: mean values among healthy adults free of hypertension and obesity. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2008, 1:782-786.
98. Feuchtner G.M., Dichtl W., Friedrich G.J., et al. Multislice computed tomography for detection of patients with aortic valve stenosis and quantification of severity. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47(7):1410-1496.
99. Lembcke A., Durmus T., Westermann Y., et al. Assessment of mitral valve stenosis by helical MDCT: comparison with transthoracic Doppler echocardiography and cardiac catheterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011, 197(3):614-622.
100. Smith T., Gurudevan S., Cheng V., et al. Assessment of the morphological features of degenerative mitral valve disease using 64-slice multi detector computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2012, 6(6):415-421.
101. Feuchtner G., Goetti R., Plass A., et al. Adenosine Stress High-Pitch 128-Slice Dual-Source Myocardial Computed Tomography Perfusion for Imaging of Reversible Myocardial Ischemia. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2011, 4:540-549.
102. Nakazato R., Tamarappoo B.K., Smith T.W., et al. Assessment of left ventricular regional wall motion and ejection fraction with low-radiation dose helical dual-source CT: comparison to two-dimensional echocardiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011, 5(3):149-157.
103. Blankstein R., Rogers I.S., Cury R.C. Practical tips and tricks in cardiovascular CT: diagnosis of myocardial infarction. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009, 3(2):104-111.
104. Siemers P.T., Higgins C.B., Schmidt W., Ashburn W., Hagan P. Detection, quantitation and contrast enhancement of myocardial infarction utilizing computerized axial tomography: comparison with histochemical staining and 99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging. Invest Radiol 1978, 13(2):103-109.
105. Koyama Y., Matsuoka H., Mochizuki T., et al. Assessment of reperfused acute myocardial infarction with two-phase contrast-enhanced helical CT: prediction of left ventricular function and wall thickness. Radiology 2005, 235(3):804-811.
106. Nieman K., Cury R.C., Ferencik M., et al. Differentiation of recent and chronic myocardial infarction by cardiac computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 2006, 98(3):303-308.
107. Kurata A., Mochizuki T., Koyama Y., et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging using adenosine triphosphate stress multi-slice spiral computed tomography: alternative to stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Circ J 2005, 69(5):550-557.
108. Blankstein R., Shturman L.D., Rogers I.S., et al. Adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using dual-source cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 54(12):1072-1084.
109. Rochitte C.E., George R.T., Chen M.Y., et al. Computed tomography angiography and perfusion to assess coronary artery stenosis causing perfusion defects by single photon emission computed tomography: the CORE320 study. Eur Heart J 2014, 35:1120-1130.
110. Bamberg F., Becker A., Schwarz F., et al. Detection of hemodynamically significant coronary artery stenosis: incremental diagnostic value of dynamic CT-based myocardial perfusion imaging. Radiology 2011, 260(3):689-698.
111. Rossi A., Dharampal A., Wragg A., et al. Diagnostic performance of hyperaemic myocardial blood flow index obtained by dynamic computed tomography: does it predict functionally significant coronary lesions?. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014, 15(1):85-94.
112. MacMahon H., Austin J.H., Gamsu G. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2005, 237(2):395-400.
113. Aberle D.R., Adams A.M., Berg C.D. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. NEJM 2011, 365:395-409. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team.