Advertisement

Incremental value of dual-energy CT to coronary CT angiography for the detection of significant coronary stenosis: comparison with quantitative coronary angiography and single photon emission computed tomography

  • Rui Wang
  • Wei Yu
  • Yongmei Wang
  • Yi He
  • Lin Yang
  • Tao Bi
  • Jian Jiao
  • Qian Wang
  • Liquan Chi
  • Yang Yu
  • Zhaoqi ZhangEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

To determine the value of dual-energy CT (DECT) and combined information of perfusion and angiography in diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD), with single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) as a reference standard. Thirty-four patients were enrolled in this study. DECT was used as a contrast-enhanced retrospectively ECG-gated scan protocol during the rest state and tubes were set at 140/100 kV. DECT angiography (DE-CTA) and DECT perfusion (DE-CTP) were calculated from two kV images. DE-CTP results were compared with SPECT and DE-CTA with QCA, respectively. The combined DE-CTP with DE-CTA data were compared to QCA in diagnosis of obstructive CAD (stenosis ≥ 50%). DECT showed diagnostic image quality in 31 patients. Using SPECT as a reference, DE-CTP had sensitivity of 68%, specificity of 93%, and sensitivity of 81%, and specificity of 92% for identifying any type of perfusion deficits on the segment- and territory-based analysis, respectively. Using QCA as a reference standard, DE-CTA showed sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 91% and accuracy of 86% for detecting ≥50% coronary stenosis on the vessel-based analysis, whereas the combination of DE-CTA and DE-CTP gave sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 86% and accuracy of 88% for detecting ≥50% coronary stenosis, respectively. Combination of DE-CTP and DE-CTA may improve diagnostic performance compared to CTA alone for the diagnosis of significant coronary stenosis.

Keywords

Dual energy computed tomography Dual-source computed tomography Coronary artery disease Myocardial perfusion 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Carrigan TP, Nair D, Schoenhagen P et al (2009) Prognostic utility of 64-slice computed tomography in patients with suspected but no documented coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 30(3):362–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(24):3042–3050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vanhoenacker PK, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Van Heste R et al (2007) Diagnostic performance of multidetector CT angiography for assessment of coronary artery disease: meta-analysis. Radiology 244(2):419–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang S, Levin DC, Halpern EJ et al (2008) Accuracy of MDCT in assessing the degree of stenosis caused by calcified coronary artery plaques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(6):1676–1683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Valenta I et al (2008) Functionally relevant coronary artery disease: comparison of 64-section CT angiography with myocardial perfusion SPECT. Radiology 248(2):414–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH et al (2003) ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging-executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol 42(7):1318–1333Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ishida M, Kato S, Sakuma H (2009) Cardiac MRI in ischemic heart disease. Circ J 73(9):1577–1588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Husmann L, Herzog BA, Gaemperli O et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography and evaluation of stress-only single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography hybrid imaging: comparison of prospective electrocardiogram-triggering vs. retrospective gating. Eur Heart J 30(5):600–607Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Namdar M, Hany TF, Koepfli P et al (2005) Integrated PET/CT for the assessment of coronary artery disease: a feasibility study. J Nucl Med 46(6):930–935PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(10):1059–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Okada DR, Ghoshhajra BB, Blankstein R et al (2010) Direct comparison of rest and adenosine stress myocardial perfusion CT with rest and stress SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 17(1):27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blankstein R, Shturman LD, Rogers IS et al (2009) Adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using dual-source cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(12):1072–1084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M et al (2007) Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 17(6):1510–1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruzsics B, Lee H, Powers ER et al (2008) Images in cardiovascular medicine. Myocardial ischemia diagnosed by dual-energy computed tomography: correlation with single-photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 117(9):1244–1245Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwarz F, Ruzsics B, Schoepf UJ et al (2008) Dual-energy CT of the heart-principles and protocols. Eur J Radiol 68(3):423–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC et al (2007) Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 116(11):1290–1305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(4 suppl):5–40Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, 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(4):539–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kachenoura N, Gaspar T, Lodato JA et al (2009) Combined assessment of coronary anatomy and myocardial perfusion using multidetector computed tomography for the evaluation of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 103(11):1487–1494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cerqueira MD, Verani MS, Schwaiger M et al (1994) Safety profile of adenosine stress perfusion imaging: results from the Adenoscan Multicenter Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 23(2):384–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ruzsics B, Schwarz F, Schoepf UJ et al (2009) Comparison of dual-energy computed tomography of the heart with single photon emission computed tomography for assessment of coronary artery stenosis and of the myocardial blood supply. Am J Cardiol 104(3):318–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruzsics B, Lee H, Zwerner PL et al (2008) Dual-energy CT of the heart for diagnosing coronary artery stenosis and myocardial ischemia-initial experience. Eur Radiol 18(11):2414–2424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang LJ, Peng J, Wu SY et al (2010) Dual source dual-energy computed tomography of acute myocardial infarction: correlation with histopathologic findings in a canine model. Invest Radiol 45(6):290–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nagao M, Matsuoka H, Kawakami H et al (2009) Detection of myocardial ischemia using 64-slice MDCT. Circ J 73(5):905–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mahnken AH, Lautenschlager S, Fritz D et al (2008) Perfusion weighted color maps for enhanced visualization of myocardial infarction by MSCT: preliminary experience. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24(8):883–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruzsics B, Chiaramida SA, Schoepf UJ (2009) Images in cardiology: dual-energy computed tomography imaging of myocardial infarction. Heart 95(3):180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ko SM, Choi JW, Song MG et al (2011) Myocardial perfusion imaging using adenosine-induced stress dual-energy computed tomography of the heart: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and conventional coronary angiography. Eur Radiol 21(1):26–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nagao M, Kido T, Watanabe K et al (2010) Functional assessment of coronary artery flow using adenosine stress dual-energy CT: a preliminary study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi: 10.1007/s10554-010-9676-2
  29. 29.
    Weininger M, Schoepf UJ, Ramachandra A et al (2010) Adenosine-stress dynamic real-time myocardial perfusion CT and adenosine-stress first-pass dual-energy myocardial perfusion CT for the assessment of acute chest pain: initial results. Eur J Radiol. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.022
  30. 30.
    Sato A, Nozato T, Hikita H et al (2010) Incremental value of combining 64-slice computed tomography angiography with stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging to improve noninvasive detection of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol 17(1):19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Valenta I et al (2007) Cardiac image fusion from stand-alone SPECT and CT: clinical experience. J Nucl Med 48(5):696–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Malagutti P et al (2006) Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 48(9):1896–1910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT et al (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248(1):254–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH (2003) Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 107(6):917–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rui Wang
    • 1
  • Wei Yu
    • 1
  • Yongmei Wang
    • 1
  • Yi He
    • 1
  • Lin Yang
    • 1
  • Tao Bi
    • 1
  • Jian Jiao
    • 2
  • Qian Wang
    • 2
  • Liquan Chi
    • 3
  • Yang Yu
    • 3
  • Zhaoqi Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Anzhen HospitalCapital Medical UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Anzhen HospitalCapital Medical UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of Cardiology, Anzhen HospitalCapital Medical UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations