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.

  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology 12/2011; 58(25):e212-e260. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.011 · 15.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is a robust non-invasive method to assess coronary artery disease (CAD). Qualitative and quantitative assessment of atherosclerotic coronary stenosis with CCTA has been favourably compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Importantly, it allows the study of preclinical stages of atherosclerotic disease, may help improve risk stratification and monitor the progressive course of the disease. The diagnostic accuracy of CCTA in the assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) is excellent and the constantly improving technology is making the evaluation of stents feasible. Novel techniques are being developed to assess the functional significance of coronary stenosis. The excellent negative predictive value of CCTA in ruling out disease enables early and safe discharge of patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the Emergency Department (ED). In addition, CCTA is useful in predicting clinical outcomes based on the extent of coronary atherosclerosis and also based on individual plaque characteristics such as low attenuation plaque (LAP), positive remodelling and spotty calcification. In this article, we review the role of CCTA in the detection of coronary atherosclerosis in native vessels, stented vessels, calcified arteries and grafts; the assessment of plaque progression, evaluation of chest pain in the ED, assessment of functional significance of stenosis and the prognostic significance of CCTA.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic heart failure is a major public-health problem with a high prevalence, complex treatment, and high mortality. A careful and comprehensive analysis is needed to provide optimal (and personalized) therapy to heart failure patients. The main 4 non-invasive imaging techniques (echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, multi-detector-computed tomography, and nuclear imaging) provide information on cardiovascular anatomy and function, which form the basis of the assessment of the pathophysiology underlying heart failure. The selection of imaging modalities depends on the information that is needed for the clinical management of the patients: (1) underlying etiology (ischemic vs non-ischemic); (2) in ischemic patients, need for revascularization should be evaluated (myocardial ischemia/viability?); (3) left ventricular function and shape assessment; (4) presence of significant secondary mitral regurgitation; (5) device therapy with cardiac resynchronization therapy and/or implantable cardiac defibrillator (risk of sudden cardiac death). This review is dedicated to assessment of myocardial viability, however "isolated assessment of myocardial viability" may be clinically not meaningful and should be considered among all those different variables. This complete information will enable personalized treatment of the patient with ischemic heart failure.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 30, 2014