Enhanced Diagnostic Utility Achieved By Myocardial Blood Analysis: A Meta-Analysis Of Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging In The Detection Of Functional Coronary Artery Disease
Neng Dai,Xianlin Zhang,Yi Zhang,Lei Hou,Weiming Li,Bing Fan,Tiansong Zhang,Yawei Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.07.031
IF: 4.039
2016-01-01
International Journal of Cardiology
Abstract:Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic utility of 6 cardiac imaging modalities using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.Methods: Studies reporting diagnostic performance of computed tomographic perfusion imaging (CTP), fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (FFRCT), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) for diagnosis of ischemia-causing lesions were included.Results: On vessel-based and patient-based analyses, CMR, PET, CTP and FFRCT exhibited comparable sensitivity (per-vessel: 87% vs. 86% vs. 89% vs. 86%; per-patient: 88% vs. 90% vs. 88% vs. 90%, P > 0.05) and specificity (per-vessel: 89% vs. 88% vs. 89% vs. 83%; per-patient: 84% vs. 84% vs. 87% vs. 75%, P > 0.05); whereas SPECT yielded significantly lower sensitivity (per-vessel: 72%; per-patient: 78%, P < 0.05) and specificity (per-vessel: 79%; per-patient: 79%, P < 0.05) and DES yielded significantly lower sensitivity (per-vessel: 62%, per-patient: 69%, P < 0.05). On the other hand, within the same imaging modality, myocardial blood flow (MBF) derived by CTP had a higher sensitivity (90% vs. 80%, P = 0.048) but lower specificity (77% vs. 93%, P = 0.02) than that of perfusion defect (PD). Moreover, MBF derived by CMR had a lower specificity than that of PD (60% vs. 93%, P = 0.02), while coronary flow reserve (CRF) derived by PET had a lower specificity than that of MBF (81% vs. 89%, P = 0.005).Conclusion: CMR, PET, CTP and FFRCT expressed similar and high accuracy in detecting functional CAD, whereas different analysis methods for each imaging modality may vary their diagnostic utility. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.