• Academic radiology · Jan 2017

    Multicenter Study Comparative Study

    Diagnostic Accuracy of Noninvasive 64-row Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography (CCTA) Compared with Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI): The PICTURE Study, A Prospective Multicenter Trial.

    • Matthew J Budoff, Dong Li, Ella A Kazerooni, Gregory S Thomas, Jennifer H Mieres, and Leslee J Shaw.
    • Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, 1124 W Carson Street, Torrance 90502, California. Electronic address: Budoff@ucla.edu.
    • Acad Radiol. 2017 Jan 1; 24 (1): 22-29.

    Rationale And ObjectivesAlthough multiple studies have shown excellent accuracy statistics for noninvasive angiography by coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA), most studies comparing nuclear imaging to CCTA were performed on patients already referred for cardiac catheterization, introducing referral and selection bias. This prospective trial evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 64-row CCTA to detect obstructive coronary stenosis compared to myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) as a reference standard.Materials And MethodsTwelve sites prospectively enrolled 230 patients (49% male, 57.8 years) with chest pain. All patients underwent MPI and CCTA (Lightspeed VCT/Visipaque 320, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA) prior to invasive coronary angiography (ICA). All patients were evaluated, and those found to have either an abnormal MPI or CCTA were clinically referred for ICA. CCTAs were graded on a 15-segment American Heart Association model by three blinded readers for presence of obstructive stenosis (>50% or >70%); MPI was graded by two blinded readers using a 17-segment model for estimation of the % myocardium ischemic or with stress defects. ICAs were independently graded for % stenosis by QCA. The efficacies of MPI and CCTA were assessed including all vessel segments for per-patient and per-vessel analyses.ResultsThe prevalence of stenosis ≥50% by ICA was 52.1% (25 of 48). The sensitivity of CCTA was significantly higher than nuclear imaging (92.0% vs 54.5%, P < 0.001), with similar specificity (87.0% vs 78.3%) when obstructive disease was defined as ≥50%. CCTA provided superior sensitivity (92.6% vs 59.3%, P < 0.001) and similar specificity (88.9% vs 81.5%) using QCA stenosis ≥70%. For ≥50% stenosis, the computed tomographic angiography odds ratio for ICA disease was 51.75 (95% CI = 8.50-314.94, P < 0.001). For summed stress score ≥5%, the odds ratio for ICA CAD was 12.73 (95% CI = 2.43-66.55, P < 0.001). Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, CCTA was better at classifying obstructive coronary artery disease when compared to MPI (area = 0.85 vs 0.71, P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis study represents one of the first prospective multicenter, controlled clinical trials comparing 64-row CCTA to MPI in the same patients, demonstrating superior diagnostic accuracy of CCTA over myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (MPS) to reliably detect >50% and >70% stenosis in stable chest pain patients.Copyright © 2017 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.