• Benjamin J W Chow, Carole Dennie, Udo Hoffmann, Derek So, Robert A de Kemp, Terrence D Ruddy, and Rob S Beanlands.
• Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. bchow@ottawaheart.ca
• Can J Cardiol. 2007 Aug 1;23(10):801-7.

BackgroundThe present study compared computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTA) and positron emission tomography (PET) for the detection of significant anatomical coronary artery stenosis as defined by conventional invasive coronary angiography (CICA).MethodsThe study protocol was approved by the local ethics board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Of the 26 patients (mean age 57+/-9 years, 18 men) who prospectively underwent CTA and rubidium-82 PET before CICA, 24 patients had a history of chest pain. Images were interpreted by expert readers and assessed for the presence of anatomically significant coronary stenosis (50% luminal diameter stenosis or greater) or myocardial perfusion defects. Diagnostic test characteristics were analyzed using patient-based, territory-based, vessel-based and segment-based analyses.ResultsIn the 24 patients referred for chest pain, CTA had similar sensitivity to PET, but was more specific (sensitivity 95% [95% CI 72% to 100%] versus 95% [95% CI 72% to 100%], respectively; specificity 100% [95% CI 46% to 100%] versus 60% [95% CI 17% to 93%], respectively) in the detection of patients with anatomical coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater. On a per-segment basis of all 26 patients, CTA had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 72%, 99%, 91% and 95%, respectively, in all coronary segments.ConclusionsCoronary CTA has a similar sensitivity and specificity to rubidium-82 PET for the identification of patients with significant anatomical coronary artery disease.

26 keywords...

hide…