Nuclear stress perfusion imaging versus computed tomography coronary angiography for identifying patients with obstructive coronary artery disease as defined by conventional angiography: Insights from the core-64 multicenter study

Heart International

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 1-6

  Tanami, Yutaka ^a   Miller, Julie M ^a   Vavere, Andrea L ^a   Rochitte, Carlos E ^b   Dewey, Marc ^c   Niinuma, Hiroyuki ^d   Clouse, Melvin E ^e   Cox, Christopher ^a   Brinker, Jeffrey ^a   Lima, Joao A C ^a   Arbab Zadeh, Armin ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^c CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^d ST LUKE'S INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^e BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cardiac computed tomography; Myocardial ischemia; Myocardial perfusion imaging

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGATSTON SCORE; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONVENTIONAL ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; NUCLEAR STRESS PERFUSION IMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84939232934     PISSN: 18261868     EISSN: 20362579     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5301/HEART.2014.12493     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Kim KP, Smith-Bindman R, McAreavey D. Myocardial perfusion scans: projected population cancer risks from current levels of use in the United States. Circulation. 2010;122:2403-10.
2. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics--2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125: 188-97.
3. Underwood SR, Anagnostopoulos C, Cerqueira M, et al. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:261-91.
4. Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using singlephoton emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detectionof obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1719-28.
5. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. 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. Eur Heart J. 2013;34: 775-81.
6. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, et al. MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with singlephoton emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:480-9.
7. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379:453-60.
8. Sharma A, Arbab-Zadeh A. Assessment of coronary heart disease by CT angiography: current and evolving applications. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:796-806.
9. Arbab-Zadeh A. Stress testing and noninvasive coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: time for a new paradigm. Heart Int. 2012;7:e2.
10. Miller JM, Dewey M, Vavere AL, et al. Coronary CT angiography using 64 detector rows: methods and design of the multi-centre trial CORE-64. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:816-28.
11. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:2324-36.
12. Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller J, Rochitte C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CT coronary angiography according to pretest probability of coronary artery disease and severity of coronary arterial calcification: the CorE-64 international, multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:379-87.
13. Hendel RC, Wackers FJ, Berman DS, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology consensus statement: reporting of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging studies. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:e152-6.
14. Pepe M. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
15. 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;52:1724-32.
16. 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;52:2135-44.
17. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362: 886-95.
18. Hulten EA, Carbonaro S, Petrillo SP, et al. Prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1237-47.
19. Andreini D, Pontone G, Mushtaq S, et al. A long-term prognostic value of coronary CT angiography in suspected coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:690-701.
20. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213-24.
21. Boden WE. Which is more enduring--FAME or COURAGE? N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1059-61.