Advertisement

Evaluation of Ischemic Heart Disease: Standard Imaging and Diagnostic Testing Modalities

  • Imran N. Chaudhary
  • Ronald G. Schwartz
Chapter

Abstract

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in United States. There are substantial costs of treating this disease. Early diagnosis of this disease is likely to result in improved health, longer life span, and significant cost savings. There are many modalities available for evaluation and early detection of CAD in patients with known or clinically suspected ischemic heart disease (IHD). These modalities include standard exercise tolerance test (ETT), nuclear cardiology techniques including radionuclide myocardial perfusion and function imaging with SPECT or PET, MUGA (ERNA) blood pool imaging, echocardiography, cardiac CT, cardiac MRI, and invasive coronary angiography. Anyone treating a patient with suspected CAD needs to be familiar with the role of each of these modalities in evaluation of the patient. Our goal is to help the reader understand unique role and indication of each of these imaging modalities in evaluation of patients with suspected ischemic heart disease, so that appropriate choices can be made in selecting diagnostic tests for the patients. The role of screening for CAD with coronary calcium scanning in patients with high burden of coronary risk factors without clinical signs or symptoms will also be reviewed.

Keywords

Coronary artery disease Ischemic heart disease Chest pain evaluation Stress test Stress and rest radionuclide SPECT/PET myocardial perfusion and function imaging ERNA (MUGA) radionuclide ventriculography Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scanning Echocardiography Stress echocardiography Cardiac CT Cardiac MRI Coronary angiography Left heart catheterization Right heart catheterization 

References

  1. 1.
    National Center of Health Statistics. Health, United States. 1995. Hyattsville, MD: Superintendent of Documents, U.S Government Printing Office, Public Health Service, 1996; DHHS publication no. (PHS) 96–1232.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ellestad MH. Stress testing: principles and practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: F.A Davis Co.; 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fletcher GF, Balady G, Froelicher VF, et al. Exercise standards. A statement for healthcare professionals from American Heart Association. Circulation. 1995;91:580.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Beaseley JW, Bricker JT, Duvernoy WF, Froelicher VF, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for exercise testing. A report of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Exercise Testing). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:260–311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moyer VA, on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for coronary heart disease with electrocardiography: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:512–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uthamalingam S, Zheng H, Leavitt M, et al. Exercise-induced ST-segment elevation in ECG lead aVR is a useful indicator of significant left main or ostial LAD coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:176–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fraker TD Jr, Fihn SD, Gibbons RJ, et al. 2007 chronic angina focused update of the ACC/AHA 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Writing Group to develop the focused update of the 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:2264–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaitman BR. Exercise stress testing. In: Braunwald E, editor. Heart disease: a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1997. p. 153–76.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT, et al., on behalf of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1531–40.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Do D, West JA, Morise A, et al. A consensus approach to diagnosing coronary artery disease based on clinical and exercise test data. Chest. 1997;111(6):1742–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Exercise treadmill score for predicting prognosis in coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106(6):793–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mark DB, Shaw L, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Prognostic value of a treadmill exercise score in outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(12):849–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Epstein SE. Implications of probability analysis on the strategy used for noninvasive assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of single or combined use of exercise electrocardiographic testing, radionuclide cineangiography and myocardial perfusion imaging. Am J Cardiol. 1980;46(3):491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:e44–e164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979;300:1350–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dilsizian V. SPECT and PET myocardial perfusion imaging: tracers and techniques. In: Dilsizian V, Narula J, editors. Atlas of nuclear cardiology. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 55–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:e50–103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verani MS. Stress myocardial perfusion imaging versus echocardiography for the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Semin Nucl Med. 1999;29(4):319–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verani MS, Mahmarian JJ, Hixson JB, et al. Diagnosis of coronary artery disease by controlled coronary vasodilation with adenosine and thallium-201 scintigraphy in patients unable to exercise. Circulation. 1990;82:80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Douglas P, Hoffman U, Patel M, et al. Promise trial. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1291–300.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    BEIR VII: Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Public Summary & Executive Summary | Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 |. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2006.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pennell DJ, Underwood R, Swanton RH, et al. Dobutamine thallium myocardial perfusion tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berman DS, Kiat H, Cohen J, et al. Prognosis of 1044 patients with normal exercise Tc-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;1A:63A.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller DD, Stratmann HG, Shaw L, et al. Dipyridamole Tc-99m sestamibi myocardial tomography as an independent predictor of cardiac event-free survival after acute ischemic events. J Nucl Cardiol. 1994;1:172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bodenheimer MM, Wacker FJT, Schwartz RG, et al. Prognostic significance of a fixed thallium defect one to six months after onset of acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina. Am J Cardiol. 1994;74:1196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Manyari DE, Knudson M, Kloiber R, al e. Sequential thallium-201 myocardial perfusion studies after successful percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: delayed resolution of exercise induced scintigraphic abnormalities. Circulation. 1988;77:86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, et al. 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 Radionuclide Imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1318–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zaret BL, Strauss HW, Hurley PJ, Natarajan TK, Pitt B. A noninvasive scintiphotographic method for detecting regional ventricular dysfunction in man. N Engl J Med. 1971;284:1165–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alderman E, Bourassa M, Cohen L, et al. Ten-year follow-up of survival and myocardial infarction in the randomized Coronary Artery Surgery Study. Circulation. 1990;82:1629–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wagner A, Mahrholdt H, Holly TA, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI and routine single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging for detection of subendocardial myocardial infarcts: an imaging study. Lancet. 2003;361:374–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Keefe JH, Barnhart CS, Bateman TM. Comparison of stress echocardiography and stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for diagnosing coronary artery disease and assessing its severity. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75:25D–34D.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation. 2006;113(10):1305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee WH, et al. Variable activation of the DNA damage response pathways in patients undergoing Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(2):e002851.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Soman P, Einstein A. Biologic effects of radiation from cardiac imaging: New insights from proteomic and genomic analyses. J Nuc l Cardiol. 2016;23:754–7. Public Summary & Executive Summary | Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 | The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sarwar A, Shaw LJ, Shapiro MD, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of absence of coronary artery calcification. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:675–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dilsizian V, Gewirtz H, Paivanas N, Kitsiou AN, Hage FG, Crone NE, Schwartz RG. Serious and potentially life threatening complications of cardiac stress testing: physiological mechanisms and management strategies. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22(6):1198–213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wackers FJT, Souffer R, Zaret BL. Nuclear cardiology. In: Braunwald E, editor. Heart disease: a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1997. p. 153–76.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1291–300.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Patel MR, Bailey SR, Bonow RO, et al. ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1995–2027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bashore TM, Balter S, Barac A, et al. 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions expert consensus document on cardiac catheterization laboratory standards update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Society for Vascular Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:2221–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rao S. SCAI Quality Improvement Toolkit 2016 [Internet] (cited 19 Oct 2017). Available from http://www.scai.org.qit/default.aspx.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Rochester Medical Center/CardiologyRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations