European Radiology

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 1812–1821 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy of combined coronary angiography and adenosine stress myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-detector computed tomography: pilot study

  • Arthur Nasis
  • Brian S. Ko
  • Michael C. Leung
  • Paul R. Antonis
  • Dee Nandurkar
  • Dennis T. Wong
  • Leo Kyi
  • James D. Cameron
  • John M. Troupis
  • Ian T. Meredith
  • Sujith K. SeneviratneEmail author



To determine the diagnostic accuracy of combined 320-detector row computed tomography coronary angiography (CTA) and adenosine stress CT myocardial perfusion imaging (CTP) in detecting perfusion abnormalities caused by obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).


Twenty patients with suspected CAD who underwent initial investigation with single-photon-emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI) were recruited and underwent prospectively-gated 320-detector CTA/CTP and invasive angiography. Two blinded cardiologists evaluated invasive angiography images quantitatively (QCA). A blinded nuclear physician analysed SPECT-MPI images for fixed and reversible perfusion defects. Two blinded cardiologists assessed CTA/CTP studies qualitatively. Vessels/territories with both >50 % stenosis on QCA and corresponding perfusion defect on SPECT-MPI were defined as ischaemic and formed the reference standard.


All patients completed the CTA/CTP protocol with diagnostic image quality. Of 60 vessels/territories, 17 (28 %) were ischaemic according to QCA/SPECT-MPI criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and area under the ROC curve for CTA/CTP was 94 %, 98 %, 94 %, 98 % and 0.96 (P < 0.001) on a per-vessel/territory basis. Mean CTA/CTP radiation dose was 9.2 ± 7.4 mSv compared with 13.2 ± 2.2 mSv for SPECT-MPI (P < 0.001).


Combined 320-detector CTA/CTP is accurate in identifying obstructive CAD causing perfusion abnormalities compared with combined QCA/SPECT-MPI, achieved with lower radiation dose than SPECT-MPI.

Key Points

Advances in CT technology provides comprehensive anatomical and functional cardiac information.

Combined 320-detector CTA/adenosine-stress CTP is feasible with excellent image quality.

Combined CTA/CTP is accurate in identifying myocardial ischaemia compared with QCA/SPECT-MPI.

Combined CTA/CTP results in lower patient radiation exposure than SPECT-MPI.

CTA/CTP may become an established imaging technique for suspected CAD.


Coronary artery disease Multidetector computed tomography Adenosine stress myocardial perfusion Single-photon emission computed tomography Myocardial ischaemia 



Coronary artery disease


Computed tomography coronary angiography


Computed tomography stress myocardial perfusion imaging


Single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging


Quantitative coronary angiography


Summed rest score


Summed stress score


Left anterior descending


Left circumflex


Right coronary artery


Positive predictive value


Negative predictive value


Receiver-operator characteristic


Funding Sources

Dr Arthur Nasis currently holds research scholarships from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Southern Health Senior Medical Staff Association.


  1. 1.
    Beller G, Zaret B (2000) Contributions of nuclear cardiology to diagnosis and prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 101:1465–1478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaw L, Iskandrian A (2004) Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 11:171–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davies R, Goldberg A, Forman S et al (1997) Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study two-year follow-up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization. Circulation 95:2037–2043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erne P, Schoenenberger A, Burckhardt D et al (2007) Effects of percutaneous coronary interventions in silent ischemia after myocardial infarction: the SWISSI II randomized controlled trial. JAMA 297:1985–1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hachamovitch R, Hayes S, Friedman J et al (2003) Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 107:2900–2907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaw L, Berman D, Maron D et al (2008) Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation 117:1283–1291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schuhbäck A, Marwan M, Gauss S et al (2012) Interobserver agreement for the detection of atherosclerotic plaque in coronary CT angiography: comparison of two low-dose image acquisition protocols with standard retrospectively ECG-gated reconstruction. Eur Radiol 22:1529–1536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budoff M, Dowe D, Jollis J 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 52:1724–1732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dewey M, Zimmermann E, Deissenrieder F et al (2009) Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy: comparison of results with cardiac catheterization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation 120:867–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neefjes L, Rossi A, Genders T et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of 128-slice dual-source CT coronary angiography: a randomized comparison of different acquisition protocols. Eur Radiol 23:614-622Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rispler S, Keidar Z, Ghersin E et al (2007) Integrated single-photon emission computed tomography and computed tomography coronary angiography for the assessment of hemodynamically significant coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:1059–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hacker M, Jakobs T, Hack N et al (2007) Sixty-four slice spiral CT angiography does not predict the functional relevance of coronary artery stenoses in patients with stable angina. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:4–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ko B, Cameron J, Meredith I et al (2012) Computed tomography stress myocardial perfusion imaging in patients considered for revascularization: a comparison with fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 33:67–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gervaise A, Osemont B, Lecocq S et al (2012) CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol 22:295–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blankstein R, Shturman L, Rogers I et al (2009) Adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using dual-source cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:1072–1084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    George R, Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller J et al (2009) Adenosine stress 64- and 256-row detector computed tomography angiography and perfusion imaging: a pilot study evaluating the transmural extent of perfusion abnormalities to predict atherosclerosis causing myocardial ischemia. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2:174–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Okada D, Ghoshhajra B, Blankstein R et al (2010) Direct comparison of rest and adenosine stress myocardial perfusion CT with rest and stress SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 17:27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rocha-Filho J, Blankstein R, Shturman L et al (2010) Incremental value of adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging with dual-source CT at cardiac CT angiography. Radiology 254:410–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mehra V, Valdiviezo C, Arbab-Zadeh A et al (2011) A stepwise approach to the visual interpretation of CT-based myocardial perfusion. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:357–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Austen W, Edwards J, Frye R 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. Circulation 51:5–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cerqueira M, Weissman N, Dilsizian V et al (2002) Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation 105:539–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shrimpton P, Hillier M, Lewis M, Dunn M (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79:968–980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Newcombe R (1998) Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 17:857–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zweig M, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DeLong E, DeLong D, Clarke-Pearson D (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pencina M, D’Agostino R Sr, D’Agostino R Jr, Vasan R (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27:157–172, discussion 207–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    George R, Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller J et al (2012) Computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging with 320-row detector computed tomography accurately detects myocardial ischemia in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 5:333–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bamberg F, Becker A, Schwarz F et al (2011) Detection of hemodynamically significant coronary artery stenosis: incremental diagnostic value of dynamic CT-based myocardial perfusion imaging. Radiology 260:689–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bastarrika G, Ramos-Duran L, Rosenblum M, Kang D, Rowe G, Schoepf U (2010) Adenosine-stress dynamic myocardial CT perfusion imaging: initial clinical experience. Invest Radiol 45:306–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Feuchtner G, Goetti R, Plass A et al (2011) Adenosine stress high-pitch 128-slice dual-source myocardial computed tomography perfusion for imaging of reversible myocardial ischemia: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 4:540–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garcia E, Faber T, Esteves F (2011) Cardiac dedicated ultrafast SPECT cameras: new designs and clinical implications. J Nucl Med 52:210–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taylor A, Cerqueira M, Hodgson J et al (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate use criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 4:e1–e33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Techasith T, Cury R (2011) Stress myocardial CT perfusion: an update and future perspective. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 4:905–916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tonino P, Fearon W, De Bruyne B et al (2010) Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:2816–2821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jung P, Rieber J, Stork S et al (2008) Effect of contrast application on interpretability and diagnostic value of dobutamine stress echocardiography in patients with intermediate coronary lesions: comparison with myocardial fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 29:2536–2543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gaemperli O, Husmann L, Schepis T et al (2009) Coronary CT angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging to detect flow-limiting stenoses: a potential gatekeeper for coronary revascularization? Eur Heart J 30:2921–2929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Min J, Leipsic J, Pencina M et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 308:1237–1245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vavere A, Simon G, George R et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320 row detector computed tomography: design and implementation of the CORE320 multicenter, multinational diagnostic study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:370–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bottcher M, Refsgaard J, Madsen M et al (2003) Effect of antianginal medication on resting myocardial perfusion and pharmacologically induced hyperemia. J Nucl Cardiol 10:345–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zoghbi G, Dorfman T, Iskandrian A (2008) The effects of medications on myocardial perfusion. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:401–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Koepfli P, Wyss C, Namdar M et al (2004) Beta-adrenergic blockade and myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease: differential effects in stenotic versus remote myocardial segments. J Nucl Med 45:1626–1631PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur Nasis
    • 1
  • Brian S. Ko
    • 1
  • Michael C. Leung
    • 1
  • Paul R. Antonis
    • 1
  • Dee Nandurkar
    • 2
  • Dennis T. Wong
    • 1
  • Leo Kyi
    • 1
  • James D. Cameron
    • 1
  • John M. Troupis
    • 2
  • Ian T. Meredith
    • 1
  • Sujith K. Seneviratne
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash Heart, Department of Medicine Monash Medical Centre (MMC)Southern Health and Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic ImagingMMC, Southern HealthMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations