Diagnostic or prognostic study
Second-Line Myocardial Perfusion Imaging to Detect Obstructive Stenosis
- Diagnostic accuracy study
- head-to-head
- consecutive patients
Authors' conclusion
In patients with suspected obstructive stenosis at coronary CTA, CMR, and RbPET show similar and moderate sensitivities but high specificities compared with ICA with FFR.
Study context
- Population
- Patients referred for coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) with symptoms suggestive of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and suspected stenosis on CTA372 completed cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), RbPET and invasive coronary angiography (ICA)
- Participants
- 1,732 patients
- Comparison
- 3.0-T CMR vs RbPET as second-line myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), ICA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) as reference
- Outcome
- Diagnostic performance for obstructive CAD (FFR ≤0.80 or >90% diameter stenosis) vs ICA with FFR
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Diagnostic performance vs ICA with FFR
| Test or model | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMR | 59% (95% CI: 51%-67%) | 84% (95% CI: 78%-89%) | 73% |
| RbPET | 64% (95% CI: 56%-71%) | 89% (95% CI: 84%-93%) | 78% |
- RbPET vs CMR: P = 0.21 — sensitivity
- RbPET vs CMR: P = 0.08 — specificity
- RbPET vs CMR: P = 0.03 — overall accuracy higher with RbPET
Original publication
Second-Line Myocardial Perfusion Imaging to Detect Obstructive Stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. Published 8 February 2023. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2022.11.015
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it