Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anatomical versus functional assessment of coronary artery disease: direct comparison of computed tomography coronary angiography and magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with intermediate pre-test probability

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTA) and cardiac magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging (CMR-MPI) are state-of-the-art tools for noninvasive assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CTA and CMR-MPI for the detection of functionally relevant CAD, using invasive coronary angiography (XA) with fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a reference standard, and to evaluate the best protocol integrating these techniques for assessment of patients with suspected CAD. 95 patients (68 % men; 62 ± 8.1 years) with intermediate pre-test probability (PTP) of CAD underwent a sequential protocol of CTA, CMR-MPI and XA. Significant CAD was defined as >90 % coronary stenosis, 40–90 % stenosis with FFR ≤ 0.80 or left main stenosis ≥50 %. Prevalence of significant CAD was 43 %. CTA was more sensitive (100 %) but less specific (59 %) than CMR-MPI (88 and 89 %, respectively) for detection of significant CAD, with a strong trend for higher global diagnostic accuracy of CMR-MPI (88 vs. 77 %, p = 0.05). An integrated approach based on an initial CTA and subsequent referral to CMR-MPI of positive/inconclusive results had the best diagnostic performance (AUC 0.91). The direct referral to XA of patients with positive/inconclusive CTA performed worse than a selective approach based on CMR-MPI results (AUC 0.80 vs. 0.91, p = 0.005). In this intermediate PTP population, CMR-MPI showed a strong trend toward better performance compared to CTA for the assessment of functionally significant CAD. A combined protocol integrating coronary anatomy and function seems to be a very effective approach in the accurate diagnosis of CAD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S et al (2013) 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease. The task force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 34:2949–3003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bettencourt N, Nagel E (2013) Comparison of MR and CT for the assessment of the significance of coronary artery disease: a review. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 6:102–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:1724–1732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abdulla J, Abildstrom SZ, Gotzsche O et al (2007) 64-multislice detector computed tomography coronary angiography as potential alternative to conventional coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 28:3042–3050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schuijf JD, Wijns W, Jukema JW et al (2006) Relationship between noninvasive coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography and myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:2508–2514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Morton G, Schuster A, Perera D et al (2010) Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to guide complex revascularization in stable coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 31:2209–2215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rieber J, Huber A, Erhard I et al (2006) Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 27:1465–1471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF et al (2012) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet 379:453–460

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC et al (2008) MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicenter, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J 29:480–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N et al (2013) MR-IMPACT II: magnetic resonance imaging for myocardial perfusion assessment in coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicenter, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J 34:775–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M et al (2012) Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:1546–1555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Watkins S, McGeoch R, Lyne J et al (2009) Validation of magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging with fractional flow reserve for the detection of significant coronary heart disease. Circulation 120:2207–2213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bettencourt N, Chiribiri A, Schuster A et al (2013) Cardiac magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of functionally significant obstructive coronary artery disease: a prospective study. Int J Cardiol 168:765–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schuijf JD, Bax JJ, Shaw LJ et al (2006) Meta-analysis of comparative diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and multislice computed tomography for noninvasive coronary angiography. Am Heart J 151:404–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Scheffel H, Stolzmann P, Alkadhi H et al (2010) Low-dose CT and cardiac MR for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: accuracy of single and combined approaches. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 26:579–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Groothuis JGJ, Beek AM, Brinckman SL et al (2013) Combined non-invasive functional and anatomical diagnostic work-up in clinical practice: the magnetic resonance and computed tomography in suspected coronary disease (MARCC) study. Eur Heart J 34:1990–1998

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Genders TS, Steyerberg EW, Alkadhi H et al (2011) A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: validation, updating, and extension. Eur Heart J 32:1316–1330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bettencourt N, Rocha J, Ferreira N et al (2011) Incremental value of an integrated adenosine stress-rest MDCT perfusion protocol for detection of obstructive coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:392–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bettencourt N, Chiribiri A, Schuster A et al (2013) Direct comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance and multidetector computed tomography stress-rest perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:1099–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL et al (1975) A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association. Circulation 51:5–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kramer CM, Barkhausen J, Flamm SD et al (2013) Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocols 2013 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 15:91

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM et al (2013) Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol 62:1639–1653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G et al (2007) Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:2105–2111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH et al (2009) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 360:213–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B et al (2012) Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 367:991–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH et al (2011) Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:1989–1997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 308:1237–1245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Meijboom WB, Van Mieghem CA, van Pelt N et al (2008) Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:636–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bettencourt N, Rocha J, Carvalho M et al (2009) Multislice computed tomography in the exclusion of coronary artery disease in patients with presurgical valve disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2:306–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal

    Marta Ponte, Nuno Bettencourt, Eulália Pereira, Nuno Dias Ferreira, Aníbal Albuquerque & Vasco Gama

  2. Kings College, London, UK

    Nuno Bettencourt, Amedeo Chiribiri, Andreas Schuster & Eike Nagel

  3. Cardiovascular R&D Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Nuno Bettencourt

  4. Department of Cardiology and Pneumology and Heart Research Centre, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany

    Andreas Schuster

Authors
  1. Marta Ponte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nuno Bettencourt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eulália Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nuno Dias Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amedeo Chiribiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andreas Schuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aníbal Albuquerque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vasco Gama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Eike Nagel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Ponte.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ponte, M., Bettencourt, N., Pereira, E. et al. Anatomical versus functional assessment of coronary artery disease: direct comparison of computed tomography coronary angiography and magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with intermediate pre-test probability. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30, 1589–1597 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0492-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0492-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation