Dynamic, Time-Resolved CT Imaging of Myocardial Perfusion: Dual-Source CT

  • Gorka Bastarrika
  • Lucas L. Geyer
  • U. Joseph Schoepf
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


A comprehensive approach to coronary artery disease (CAD) requires the assessment of the anatomy and morphology of the coronary vessels as well as collection of information regarding myocardial perfusion and vascularization. To date, despite its excellent diagnostic accuracy for detection of CAD, cardiac CT remains a purely morphological test that does not enable one to obtain reliable data on the hemodynamic significance of any given coronary artery stenosis. In regular clinical practice, hemodynamic significance is derived via nuclear medicine or cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-based myocardial perfusion imaging techniques or by means of the invasive estimation of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) during conventional coronary angiography. Due to technical advances, however, we may be at the beginning of a new era in cardiac CT imaging. As shown by some preliminary animal and clinical studies, second-generation DSCT-based dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging may be useful to establish the physiological significance of CAD. In this chapter, the rationale behind dynamic, time-resolved myocardial DSCT perfusion imaging is introduced, first-pass myocardial DSCT perfusion imaging protocols are proposed, and initial preclinical and clinical evidence on myocardial DSCT perfusion imaging is described. Finally, most relevant limitations of this new imaging technology are discussed.


Single Photon Emission Compute Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Perfusion Imaging 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arnold JR, Karamitsos TD, Pegg TJ, Francis JM, Olszewski R, Searle N et al (2010) Adenosine stress myocardial contrast echocardiography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 3(9):934–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bamberg F, Klotz E, Flohr T, Becker A, Becker CR, Schmidt B et al (2010) Dynamic myocardial stress perfusion imaging using fast dual-source CT with alternating table positions: initial experience. Eur Radiol 20(5):1168–1173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamberg F, Sommer WH, Hoffmann V, Achenbach S, Nikolaou K, Conen D et al (2011a) Meta-analysis and systematic review of the long-term predictive value of assessment of coronary atherosclerosis by contrast-enhanced coronary computed tomography angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 57(24):2426–2436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bamberg F, Becker A, Schwarz F, Marcus RP, Greif M, von Ziegler F et al (2011b) Detection of hemodynamically significant coronary artery stenosis: incremental diagnostic value of dynamic CT-based myocardial perfusion imaging. Radiology 260(3):689–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamberg F, Hinkel R, Schwarz F, Sandner TA, Baloch E, Marcus R et al (2012) Accuracy of dynamic computed tomography adenosine stress myocardial perfusion imaging in estimating myocardial blood flow at various degrees of coronary artery stenosis using a porcine animal model. Invest Radiol 47(1):71–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastarrika G, Lee YS, Huda W, Ruzsics B, Costello P, Schoepf UJ (2009) CT of coronary artery disease. Radiology 253(2):317–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bastarrika G, Ramos-Duran L, Schoepf UJ, Rosenblum MA, Abro JA, Brothers RL et al (2010a) Adenosine-stress dynamic myocardial volume perfusion imaging with second generation dual-source computed tomography: concepts and first experiences. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 4(2):127–35Google Scholar
  8. Bastarrika G, Ramos-Duran L, Rosenblum MA, Kang DK, Rowe GW, Schoepf UJ (2010b) Adenosine-stress dynamic myocardial CT perfusion imaging: initial clinical experience. Invest Radiol 45(6):306–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bastarrika G, Kang DK, Abro JA, Schoepf UJ (2010c) Comprehensive assessment of coronary disease using perfusion CT with pharmacologically induced stress. Radiologia 52(5):469–472Google Scholar
  10. Bell MR, Lerman LO, Rumberger JA (1999) Validation of minimally invasive measurement of myocardial perfusion using electron beam computed tomography and application in human volunteers. Heart 81(6):628–635PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Blankstein R, Shturman LD, Rogers IS, Rocha-Filho JA, Okada DR, Sarwar A et al (2009) Adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using dual-source cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(12):1072–1084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruder H, Raupach R, Klotz E. Spatio-temporal filtration of dynamic CT data using diffusion filters. In: Samei E, Hsieh J (eds) Medical imaging 2009: physics of medical imaging, 1. Proceeding of SPIE, vol 7258. Society of Photo Optical, Bellingham, WA, pp 725857–725810Google Scholar
  13. Buhr C, Gossl M, Erbel R, Eggebrecht H (2008) Regadenoson in the detection of coronary artery disease. Vasc Health Risk Manag 4(2):337–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK 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
  15. Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, Raza U, Mahmarian JJ (2010) Normal stress-only versus standard stress/rest myocardial perfusion imaging similar patient mortality with reduced radiation exposure. J Am Coll Cardiol 55(3):221–230Google Scholar
  16. Christian TF, Rettmann DW, Aletras AH, Liao SL, Taylor JL, Balaban RS et al (2004) Absolute myocardial perfusion in canines measured by using dual-bolus first-pass MR imaging. Radiology 232(3):677–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daghini E, Primak AN, Chade AR, Zhu X, Ritman EL, McCollough CH et al (2007) Evaluation of porcine myocardial microvascular permeability and fractional vascular volume using 64-slice helical computed tomography (CT). Invest Radiol 42(5):274–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Jong MC, Genders TS, van Geuns RJ, Moelker A, Hunink MG (2012) Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 22(9):1881–1895Google Scholar
  19. Dorbala S, Hachamovitch R, Curillova Z, Thomas D, Vangala D, Kwong RY et al (2009) Incremental prognostic value of gated Rb-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging over clinical variables and rest LVEF. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2(7):846–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flotats A, Knuuti J, Gutberlet M, Marcassa C, Bengel FM, Kaufmann PA et al (2011) Hybrid cardiac imaging: SPECT/CT and PET/CT. A joint position statement by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the European Society of Cardiac Radiology (ESCR) and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(1):201–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaemperli O, Husmann L, Schepis T, Koepfli P, Valenta I, Jenni W 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(23):2921–2929Google Scholar
  22. George RT, Silva C, Cordeiro MA, DiPaula A, Thompson DR, McCarthy WF et al (2006) Multidetector computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging during adenosine stress. J Am Coll Cardiol 48(1):153–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. George RT, Jerosch-Herold M, Silva C, Kitagawa K, Bluemke DA, Lima JA et al (2007) Quantification of myocardial perfusion using dynamic 64-detector computed tomography. Invest Radiol 42(12):815–822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller JM, Kitagawa K, Chang HJ, Bluemke DA 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 2:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller JM, Vavere AL, Bengel FM, Lardo AC 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(3):333–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gerber BL, Belge B, Legros GJ, Lim P, Poncelet A, Pasquet A et al (2006) Characterization of acute and chronic myocardial infarcts by multidetector computed tomography: comparison with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance. Circulation 113(6):823–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, Dixon RL, Ferrari VA, Gomes AS et al (2009) Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation 119(7):1056–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gould RG, Lipton MJ, McNamara MT, Sievers RE, Koshold S, Higgins CB (1988) Measurement of regional myocardial blood flow in dogs by ultrafast CT. Invest Radiol 23(5):348–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haberland U, Klotz E, Abolmaali N (2010) Performance assessment of dynamic spiral scan modes with variable pitch for quantitative perfusion computed tomography. Invest Radiol 45(7):378–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, Poon M, Carr JC, Gerstad NA et al (2006) ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 48(7):1475–1497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, Heidenreich PA, Henkin RE, Pellikka PA et al (2009) ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine: endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians. Circulation 119(22):e561–e587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ho KT, Chua KC, Klotz E, Panknin C (2010) Stress and rest dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging by evaluation of complete time-attenuation curves with dual-source CT. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 3(8):811–820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, Crijns HJ, Wildberger JE, Nagel E et al (2012) Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 59(19):1719–1728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. King SB 3rd, Smith SC Jr, Hirshfeld JW Jr, Jacobs AK, Morrison DA, Williams DO et al (2008) 2007 Focused Update of the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: 2007 Writing Group to Review New Evidence and Update the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Writing on Behalf of the 2005 Writing Committee. Circulation 117(2):261–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kitagawa K, George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Lima JA, Lardo AC (2010) Characterization and correction of beam-hardening artifacts during dynamic volume CT assessment of myocardial perfusion. Radiology 256(1):111–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krittayaphong R, Boonyasirinant T, Saiviroonporn P, Nakyen S, Thanapiboonpol P, Yindeengam A et al (2009) Myocardial perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: do we need rest images? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 25(Suppl 1):139–148Google Scholar
  37. Lardo AC, Cordeiro MA, Silva C, Amado LC, George RT, Saliaris AP et al (2006) Contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography viability imaging after myocardial infarction: characterization of myocyte death, microvascular obstruction, and chronic scar. Circulation 113(3):394–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lell M, Marwan M, Schepis T, Pflederer T, Anders K, Flohr T et al (2009) Prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition for coronary CT angiography using dual source CT: technique and initial experience. Eur Radiol 19(11):2576–2583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lerman LO, Siripornpitak S, Maffei NL, 2nd Sheedy PF Ritman EL (1999) Measurement of in vivo myocardial microcirculatory function with electron beam CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 23(3):390–398Google Scholar
  40. Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L, Baumueller S, Goetti R, Schertler T et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of high-pitch dual-source CT for the assessment of coronary stenoses: first experience. Eur Radiol 19(12):2896–2903Google Scholar
  41. Mahnken AH, Bruners P, Katoh M, Wildberger JE, Gunther RW, Buecker A (2006) Dynamic multi-section CT imaging in acute myocardial infarction: preliminary animal experience. Eur Radiol 16(3):746–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mahnken AH, Klotz E, Pietsch H, Schmidt B, Allmendinger T, Haberland U et al (2010) Quantitative whole heart stress perfusion CT imaging as noninvasive assessment of hemodynamics in coronary artery stenosis: preliminary animal experience. Invest Radiol 45(6):298–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. McCollough CH, Schmidt B, Yu L, Primak A, Ulzheimer S, Bruder H et al (2008) Measurement of temporal resolution in dual source CT. Med Phys 35(2):764–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, Arbab-Zadeh A, Niinuma H, Gottlieb I et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 359(22):2324–2336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Min JK, Shaw LJ, Devereux RB, Okin PM, Weinsaft JW, Russo DJ et al (2007) Prognostic value of multidetector coronary computed tomographic angiography for prediction of all-cause mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol 50(12):1161–1170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Min JK, Dunning A, Lin FY, Achenbach S, Al-Mallah M, Budoff MJ et al (2011) Age- and sex-related differences in all-cause mortality risk based on coronary computed tomography angiography findings results from the International Multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter Registry) of 23,854 patients without known coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 58(8):849–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nagel E, Klein C, Paetsch I, Hettwer S, Schnackenburg B, Wegscheider K et al (2003) Magnetic resonance perfusion measurements for the noninvasive detection of coronary artery disease. Circulation 108(4):432–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nagel E, Lima JA, George RT, Kramer CM (2009) Newer methods for noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion: cardiac magnetic resonance or cardiac computed tomography? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2(5):656–660Google Scholar
  49. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Borden WB et al (2012) Heart disease and stroke statistics—2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 125(1):e2–e220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosamond W, Flegal K, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N et al (2008) Heart disease and stroke statistics—2008 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 117(4):e25–e146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruzsics B, Lee H, Zwerner PL, Gebregziabher M, Costello P (2008) Schoepf UJ. Dual-energy CT of the heart for diagnosing coronary artery stenosis and myocardial ischemia-initial experience, Eur RadiolGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruzsics B, Schwarz F, Schoepf UJ, Lee YS, Bastarrika G, Chiaramida SA 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
  53. Schuijf JD, Wijns W, Jukema JW, Atsma DE, de Roos A, Lamb HJ et al (2006) Relationship between noninvasive coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography and myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 48(12):2508–2514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, Lombardi M, Al-Saadi N, Ahlstrom H 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 multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J 29(4):480–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, Mancini GB, Hayes SW, Hartigan PM 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(10):1283–1291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stenner P, Schmidt B, Allmendinger T, Flohr T, Kachelrie M (2010) Dynamic iterative beam hardening correction (DIBHC) in myocardial perfusion imaging using contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Invest Radiol 45(6):314–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Schertler T, Frauenfelder T, Leschka S, Husmann L et al (2008) Radiation dose estimates in dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Radiol 18(3):592–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, Mark D, Min J, O’Gara P 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 Am Coll Cardiol 56(22):1864–1894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van’ t Veer M et al (2009) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 360(3):213–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, Oldroyd KG, Leesar MA, Ver Lee PN 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(25):2816–2821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vanhoenacker PK, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Van Heste R, Decramer I, Van Hoe LR, Wijns W et al (2007) Diagnostic performance of multidetector CT angiography for assessment of coronary artery disease: meta-analysis. Radiology 244(2):419–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vliegenthart R, Henzler T, Moscariello A, Ruzsics B, Bastarrika G, Oudkerk M et al (2012) CT of coronary heart disease: Part 1 CT of myocardial infarction, ischemia, and viability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(3):531–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. von Ballmoos MW, Haring B, Juillerat P, Alkadhi H (2011) Meta-analysis: diagnostic performance of low-radiation-dose coronary computed tomography angiography. Ann Intern Med 154(6):413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang Y, Qin L, Shi X, Zeng Y, Jing H, Schoepf UJ et al (2012) Adenosine-stress dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging with second-generation dual-source CT: comparison with conventional catheter coronary angiography and SPECT nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(3):521–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weininger M, Schoepf UJ, Ramachandra A, Fink C, Rowe GW, Costello P et al (2012) 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 81(12):3703–3710Google Scholar
  66. Weininger M, Spears J, Rowe G, Costello P, Bastarrika G, Schoepf UJ (2011) First-pass myocardial stress perfusion imaging using 2nd generation dual-source CT. Presented at the 97th scientific assembly and annual meeting. Radiological Society of North America, 27 November–2 December, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolfkiel CJ, Ferguson JL, Chomka EV, Law WR, Labin IN, Tenzer ML et al (1987) Measurement of myocardial blood flow by ultrafast computed tomography. Circulation 76(6):1262–1273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gorka Bastarrika
    • 1
  • Lucas L. Geyer
    • 2
  • U. Joseph Schoepf
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Cardiothoracic Imaging, Department of Medical ImagingSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity Hospitals LMU MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of Radiology and Radiological ScienceMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  4. 4.Division of Cardiology, Department of MedicineMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations