Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: To determine and compare the diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), using conventional coronary angiography (CCA) as the reference standard.We searched Medline and Embase for literature that evaluated stress MPI for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), contrast-enhanced echocardiography (ECHO), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET).All pooled analyses were based on random effects models. Articles on MRI yielded a total of 2,970 patients from 28 studies, articles on ECHO yielded a sample size of 795 from 10 studies, articles on SPECT yielded 1,323 from 13 studies. For CAD defined as either at least 50 %, at least 70 % or at least 75 % lumen diameter reduction on CCA, the natural logarithms of the diagnostic odds ratio (lnDOR) for MRI (3.63; 95 % CI 3.26-4.00) was significantly higher compared to that of SPECT (2.76; 95 % CI 2.28-3.25; P?=?0.006) and that of ECHO (2.83; 95 % CI 2.29-3.37; P?=?0.02). There was no significant difference between the lnDOR of SPECT and ECHO (P?=?0.52).Our results suggest that MRI is superior for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD compared with ECHO and SPECT. ECHO and SPECT demonstrated similar diagnostic performance.

SUBMITTER: de Jong MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3411304 | biostudies-other | 2012 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

de Jong Marcus C MC Genders Tessa S S TS van Geuns Robert-Jan RJ Moelker Adriaan A Hunink M G Myriam MG

European radiology 20120419 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine and compare the diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), using conventional coronary angiography (CCA) as the reference standard.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched Medline and Embase for literature that evaluated stress MPI for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), contrast-enhanced echocardiography (ECHO), single-photon emission computed tomograp ...[more]

PMID: 22527375

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: Guideline recommendations for patients with either a high or a low risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are clear. However, the evidence for initial risk stratification in patients with an intermediate risk of CAD is still unclear, despite the availability of multiple non-invasive assessment strategies. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for this population to provide more informed recommendations. Background: A meta-analysis was performed to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (pCMR) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) for the detection of relevant CAD. In contrast to previous work, this meta-analysis follows rigorous selection criteria in regards to the risk stratification and a narrowly prespecified definition of their invasive reference tests, resulting in unprecedentedly informative results for this reference group. Data Collection and Analysis: From the 5,634 studies identified, 1,306 relevant articles were selected after title screening and further abstract screening left 865 studies for full-text review. Of these, 47 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria resulting in a total sample size of 4,742 patients. Results: pCMR studies showed a superior sensitivity [0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.90) vs. 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61-0.81)], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) [38 (95% CI: 29-49) vs. 20 (95% CI: 9-46)] and an augmented post-test probability [negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.12-0.18) vs. 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.46)] as compared to DSE. Specificity was statistically indifferent [0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87) vs. 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.93)]. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that pCMR has a superior diagnostic test accuracy for relevant CAD compared to DSE. In patients with intermediate risk of CAD only pCMR can reliably rule out relevant stenosis. In this risk cohort, pCMR can be offered for initial risk stratification and guidance of further invasive treatment as it also rules in relevant CAD.

Project description: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.

Project description:Perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted as an alternative to SPECT to assess myocardial ischemia non-invasively. However its performance vs gated-SPECT and in sub-populations is not fully established. The goal was to compare in a multicenter setting the diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR and gated-SPECT for the detection of CAD in various populations using conventional x-ray coronary angiography (CXA) as the standard of reference.In 33 centers (in US and Europe) 533 patients, eligible for CXA or SPECT, were enrolled in this multivendor trial. SPECT and CXA were performed within 4 weeks before or after CMR in all patients. Prevalence of CAD in the sample was 49% and 515 patients received MR contrast medium. Drop-out rates for CMR and SPECT were 5.6% and 3.7%, respectively (ns). The study was powered for the primary endpoint of non-inferiority of CMR vs SPECT for both, sensitivity and specificity for the detection of CAD (using a single-threshold reading), the results for the primary endpoint were reported elsewhere. In this article secondary endpoints are presented, i.e. the diagnostic performance of CMR versus SPECT in subpopulations such as multi-vessel disease (MVD), in men, in women, and in patients without prior myocardial infarction (MI). For diagnostic performance assessment the area under the receiver-operator-characteristics-curve (AUC) was calculated. Readers were blinded versus clinical data, CXA, and imaging results.The diagnostic performance (= area under ROC = AUC) of CMR was superior to SPECT (p = 0.0004, n = 425) and to gated-SPECT (p = 0.018, n = 253). CMR performed better than SPECT in MVD (p = 0.003 vs all SPECT, p = 0.04 vs gated-SPECT), in men (p = 0.004, n = 313) and in women (p = 0.03, n = 112) as well as in the non-infarct patients (p = 0.005, n = 186 in 1-3 vessel disease and p = 0.015, n = 140 in MVD).In this large multicenter, multivendor study the diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR to detect CAD was superior to perfusion SPECT in the entire population and in sub-groups. Perfusion-CMR can be recommended as an alternative for SPECT imaging.ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT00977093.

Project description:PURPOSE:To compare the diagnostic performance of myocardial computed tomographic (CT) perfusion imaging and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging in the diagnosis of anatomically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) as depicted at invasive coronary angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This study was approved by the institutional review board. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Sixteen centers enrolled 381 patients from November 2009 to July 2011. Patients underwent rest and adenosine stress CT perfusion imaging and rest and either exercise or pharmacologic stress SPECT before and within 60 days of coronary angiography. Images from CT perfusion imaging, SPECT, and coronary angiography were interpreted at blinded, independent core laboratories. The primary diagnostic parameter was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated with use of prespecified cutoffs. The reference standard was a stenosis of at least 50% at coronary angiography as determined with quantitative methods. RESULTS:CAD was diagnosed in 229 of the 381 patients (60%). The per-patient sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CAD (stenosis ?50%) were 88% (202 of 229 patients) and 55% (83 of 152 patients), respectively, for CT perfusion imaging and 62% (143 of 229 patients) and 67% (102 of 152 patients) for SPECT, with Az values of 0.78 (95% confidence interval: 0.74, 0.82) and 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.64, 0.74) (P = .001). The sensitivity of CT perfusion imaging for single- and multivessel CAD was higher than that of SPECT, with sensitivities for left main, three-vessel, two-vessel, and one-vessel disease of 92%, 92%, 89%, and 83%, respectively, for CT perfusion imaging and 75%, 79%, 68%, and 41%, respectively, for SPECT. CONCLUSION:The overall performance of myocardial CT perfusion imaging in the diagnosis of anatomic CAD (stenosis ?50%), as demonstrated with the Az, was higher than that of SPECT and was driven in part by the higher sensitivity for left main and multivessel disease.

Project description:Stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proposed as an important gatekeeper for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients evaluated for possible coronary artery disease (CAD) (Fihn et al., 2012; Montalescot et al., 2013) [1], [2]. Several meta-analyses have evaluated the accuracy of stress perfusion CMR to diagnose CAD at the vessel level (Danad et al., 2017; Dai et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2016; Takx et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015; Desai and Jha, 2013; Jaarsma et al. 2012; Hamon et al., 2010; Nandalur et al. 2007) [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. However, they included in the same analysis studies with different definitions of significant CAD (i.e. fractional flow reserve [FFR] < 0.75 and < 0.80 or coronary stenosis ? 50% and ? 70%), magnetic field strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla [T]), and study protocol (integration or not of late gadolinium enhancement [LGE] into stress perfusion protocol). Data of 34 studies (6091 arteries) have been pooled with the aim of analyzing the accuracy of stress perfusion CMR for the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease at the vessel level according to different definitions of significant CAD, magnetic field strength and study protocol (Arnold et al., 2010; Bettencourt et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2007; Chiribiri et al., 2013; Cury et al., 2006; De Mello et al., 2012; Donati et al., 2010; Ebersberger et al., 2013; Gebker et al., 2008; Greulich et al., 2015; Hussain et al., 2016; Ishida et al., 2005, 2003; Kamiya et al., 2014; Kitagawa et al., 2008; Klein et al., 2008; Klem et al., 2006; Klumpp et al., 2010; Krittayaphong et al., 2009; Lockie et al., 2011; Ma et al., 2012; Merkle et al., 2007; Meyer et al., 2008; Mor-Avi et al., 2008; Pan et al., 2015; Papanastasiou et al., 2016; Pons Lladó et al., 2004; Sakuma et al., 2005; Salerno et al., 2014; Scheffel et al., 2010; van Werkhoven et al., 2010; Walcher et al., 2013; Watkins et al., 2009; Yun et al., 2015) [12-45]. This article describes data related article titled "Diagnostic Performance of Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for the Detection of Coronary Artery Disease" (Kiaos et al., submitted for publication) [46].

Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure