This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1/2/114    most recent CIRCIMAGING.107.756304v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pouleur, A.-C. Articles by Gerber, B. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Pouleur, A.-C. Articles by Gerber, B. L. Related Collections Chronic ischemic heart disease Coronary imaging: angiography/ultrasound/Doppler/CC CT and MRI Related Article

Original Articles

Direct Comparison of Whole-Heart Navigator-Gated Magnetic Resonance Coronary Angiography and 40- and 64-Slice Multidetector Row Computed Tomography to Detect the Coronary Artery Stenosis in Patients Scheduled for Conventional Coronary Angiography

Anne-Catherine Pouleur, MD; Jean-Benoît le Polain de Waroux, MD; Joelle Kefer, MD; Agnès Pasquet, MD; Jean-Louis Vanoverschelde, MD and Bernhard L. Gerber, MD

From the Divisions of Cardiology, Cliniques Universitaires St. Luc UCL, Brussels, Belgium.

Correspondence to Bernhard L. Gerber MD, Department of Cardiology, Cliniques Universitaires St. Luc UCL, Av Hippocrate 10/2806, B-1200 Woluwé St. Lambert, Belgium. E-mail Bernhard.Gerber{at}clin.ucl.ac.be

Received January 8, 2008; accepted July 9, 2008.

Background— Both whole-heart magnetic resonance coronary angiography (WH-MRCA) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) have been proposed for the noninvasive identification of the coronary stenosis. The authors sought to directly compare the diagnostic accuracy of these noninvasive imaging techniques using the invasive quantitative coronary angiography as a reference standard.

Methods and Results— Seventy-seven consecutive patients (56 men, 61±14 years) prospectively underwent WH-MRCA and 40- or 64-slice MDCT before the quantitative coronary angiography. Diagnostic accuracy of WH-MRCA and MDCT for the visual identification of >50% diameter stenosis in segments of >1.5 mm size was compared using the quantitative coronary angiography as a reference. According to the quantitative coronary angiography, 49 of 992 coronary segments >1.5 mm diameter had >50% diameter stenosis. MDCT had a higher success rate (100% versus 88%, P<0.001) and enabled identification of more segments (963 versus 726, P<0.001) than did WH-MRCA. On a per-segment basis, WH-MRCA had similar sensitivity (47/49 or 96% versus 48/49 or 98%, P=0.9) but significantly lower specificity (644/943 or 68% versus 863/943 or 92%, P<0.001) and accuracy (691/992 or 70% versus 911/992 or 92%, P<0.001) for the detection of >50% diameter stenosis than did MDCT. On a per-patient basis, the sensitivity was similar (17/17 or 100% versus 16/17 or 94%, P=0.9), but specificity (43/60 or 72% versus 53/60 or 88%, P=0.024) and diagnostic accuracy (60/77 or 78%, versus 69/77 or 90%, P=0.044) of WH-MRCA for the detection of >50% diameter stenosis were significantly lower than of MDCT.

Conclusions— Because of the higher success rate and higher number of interpretable segments, 40- or 64-slice MDCT performs better than WH-MRCA.

Key Words: contrast media • coronary disease • magnetic resonance imaging • tomography, computed

---

 

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE

Related Article

Noninvasive Coronary Imaging: The Contest Between Magnetic Resonance and Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography

Pim J. de Feyter and Robert-Jan van Geuns
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2008 1: 89-91. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. T. Sibley and D. A. Bluemke Will 3.0-T make coronary magnetic resonance angiography competitive with computed tomography angiography? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 30, 2009; 54(1): 77 - 78. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Q. Yang, K. Li, X. Liu, X. Bi, Z. Liu, J. An, A. Zhang, R. Jerecic, and D. Li Contrast-Enhanced Whole-Heart Coronary Magnetic Resonance Angiography at 3.0-T: A Comparative Study With X-Ray Angiography in a Single Center J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 30, 2009; 54(1): 69 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]