Meta-analysis: Noninvasive Coronary Angiography Using Computed Tomography Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Department of Radiology, Charité Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 02/2010; 152(3):167-77. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-152-3-201002020-00008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Two imaging techniques, multislice computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have evolved for noninvasive coronary angiography.
To compare CT and MRI for ruling out clinically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in adults with suspected or known CAD.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science searches from inception through 2 June 2009 and bibliographies of reviews.
Prospective English- or German-language studies that compared CT or MRI with conventional coronary angiography in all patients and included sufficient data for compilation of 2 x 2 tables.
2 investigators independently extracted patient and study characteristics; differences were resolved by consensus.
89 and 20 studies (comprising 7516 and 989 patients) assessed CT and MRI, respectively. Bivariate analysis of data yielded a mean sensitivity and specificity of 97.2% (95% CI, 96.2% to 98.0%) and 87.4% (CI, 84.5% to 89.8%) for CT and 87.1% (CI, 83.0% to 90.3%) and 70.3% (CI, 58.8% to 79.7%) for MRI. In studies that included only patients with suspected CAD, sensitivity and specificity of CT were 97.6% (CI, 96.1% to 98.5%) and 89.2% (CI, 86.0% to 91.8%). Covariate analysis yielded a significantly higher sensitivity for CT scanners with more than 16 rows (98.1% [CI, 97.0% to 99.0%]; P < 0.050) than for older-generation scanners (95.6% [CI, 94.0% to 97.0%]). Heart rates less than 60 beats/min during CT yielded significantly better values for sensitivity than did higher heart rates (P < 0.001).
Few studies investigated coronary angiography with MRI. Only 5 studies were direct head-to-head comparisons of CT and MRI. Covariate analyses explained only part of the observed heterogeneity.
For ruling out CAD, CT is more accurate than MRI. Scanners with more than 16 rows improve sensitivity, as do slowed heart rates. Primary Funding Source: None.

Download full-text


Available from: Niki-Maria Zacharopoulou, Jul 04, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective We previously validated a gene expression score (GES) based on age, sex and peripheral blood cell expression levels of 23 genes measured by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) for diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) (≥50% luminal diameter stenosis). In this study we sought to determine the association between the GES and coronary arterial Plaque Burden and Stenosis by CT-angiography. Methods A total of 610 patients (mean age: 57 ± 11; 50% male) from the PREDICT and COMPASS studies from 59 centers were analyzed. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring, CT angiography (CTA)-based plaque and stenosis and GES measurements were performed. CAC was expressed as Agatston score and CTA evaluated for stenosis severity: 0. None; 1. Minimal, 2. Mild, 3. Moderate, 4. Severe and 5. Occluded. Correlation analysis, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed. Results GES was significantly associated with plaque burden by CAC (r = 0.50; p < 0.001) and CTA (segment involvement score index: r = 0.37, p < 0.001); a low score (≤15) had sensitivity of 0.71 and a high score (≥28) a specificity of 0.97 for the prediction of zero vs. non-zero CAC. Increasing GES was associated with a greater degree of categorical stenosis by ANOVA (p < 0.001); GES significantly correlated with maximum luminal stenosis (r = 0.41; p < 0.01) and segment stenosis score index (r = 0.38; p < 0.01). A low score had sensitivity of 0.90 and a high score a specificity of 0.87 for ≥70% stenosis. Conclusions A previously validated GES is significantly associated with Plaque Burden and Stenosis by CT. Clinical trial registration. (PREDICT [NCT00500617] and COMPASS [NCT01117506]),
    Atherosclerosis 03/2014; 233(1):284–290. DOI:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2013.12.045 · 3.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Coronary Angiography - Advances in Noninvasive Imaging Approach for Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease, 09/2011; , ISBN: 978-953-307-675-1
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has evolved as the most sensitive diagnostic non-invasive test for diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD). Outcomes data is accumulating and demonstrating that CCTA has excellent prognostic value. Given CCTA’s consistently proven accuracy and improved safety related to radiation sparing techniques, public health officials have called for comparative cost-effectiveness research of CCTA vs other diagnostic testing strategies for assessing possible angina in symptomatic patients. In this article, we review the available cost studies of CCTA in comparison with other diagnostic strategies. Currently available data are limited but include 5 completed randomized trials, 11 observational studies, 7 studies using theoretical mathematical modeling, and 4 reports of the cost impact of incidental findings on CCTA. Additional randomized trials including cost considerations are ongoing, but evidence from available randomized, observational, and theoretical modeling data mostly support CCTA as a potentially cost-saving, non-invasive test for the evaluation of CAD in symptomatic patients.
    Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports 10/2012; 5(5). DOI:10.1007/s12410-012-9158-0