Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2015, Article ID 105629, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/105629
Research Article

Regadenoson-Stress Dynamic Myocardial Perfusion Improves Diagnostic Performance of CT Angiography in Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Artery Stenosis in Asymptomatic Patients

1Department of Imaging Methods, University Hospital Pilsen, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic
2Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Pilsen, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic
3Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Pilsen, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic
4Department of Surgery, University Hospital Pilsen, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic
5Siemens Healthcare, CT Physics and Applications Development, Siemensstrasse 1, 91301 Forchheim, Germany

Received 15 April 2015; Revised 16 June 2015; Accepted 22 June 2015

Academic Editor: Sara Seitun

Copyright © 2015 Jan Baxa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. Z. Sun, Y. F. A. Aziz, and K. H. Ng, “Coronary CT angiography: how should physicians use it wisely and when do physicians request it appropriately?” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. e684–e687, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. A. R. Patel, J. A. Lodato, S. Chandra et al., “Detection of myocardial perfusion abnormalities using ultra-low radiation dose regadenoson stress multidetector computed tomography,” Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 247–254, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. A. R. Patel, N. M. Bhave, and V. Mor-Avi, “Myocardial perfusion imaging with cardiac computed tomography: state of the art,” Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 695–707, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. Hadamitzky, S. Täubert, S. Deseive et al., “Prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography during 5 years of follow-up in patients with suspected coronary artery disease,” European Heart Journal, vol. 34, no. 42, pp. 3277–3285, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. Y. Wang, L. Qin, X. Shi et al., “Adenosine-stress dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging with second-generation dual-source CT: comparison with conventional catheter coronary angiography and SPECT nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging,” The American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 198, no. 3, pp. 521–529, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. D. M. Gallik, S. D. Obermueller, U. S. Swarna, G. W. Guidry, J. J. Mahmarian, and M. S. Verani, “Simultaneous assessment of myocardial perfusion and left ventricular function during transient coronary occlusion,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 1529–1538, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. G. L. Raff, A. Abidov, S. Achenbach et al., “SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary computed tomographic angiography,” Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 122–136, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. S. M. Kim, J.-H. Choi, S.-A. Chang, and Y. H. Choe, “Additional value of adenosine-stress dynamic CT myocardial perfusion imaging in the reclassification of severity of coronary artery stenosis at coronary CT angiography,” Clinical Radiology, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. e659–e668, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. C. E. Rochitte, R. T. George, M. Y. Chen et al., “Computed tomography angiography and perfusion to assess coronary artery stenosis causing perfusion defects by single photon emission computed tomography: the CORE320 study,” European Heart Journal, vol. 35, no. 17, pp. 1120–1130, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. M. Greif, F. von Ziegler, F. Bamberg et al., “CT stress perfusion imaging for detection of haemodynamically relevant coronary stenosis as defined by FFR,” Heart, vol. 99, no. 14, pp. 1004–1011, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. S. M. Kim, J.-H. Choi, S.-A. Chang, and Y. H. Choe, “Detection of ischaemic myocardial lesions with coronary CT angiography and adenosine-stress dynamic perfusion imaging using a 128-slice dual-source CT: diagnostic performance in comparison with cardiac MRI,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 86, no. 1032, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. B. S. Ko, J. D. Cameron, T. Defrance, and S. K. Seneviratne, “CT stress myocardial perfusion imaging using multidetector CT—a review,” Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 345–356, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. G. Feuchtner, R. Goetti, A. Plass et al., “Adenosine stress high-pitch 128-slice dual-source myocardial computed tomography perfusion for imaging of reversible myocardial ischemia: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging,” Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 540–549, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. A. Becker and C. Becker, “CT imaging of myocardial perfusion: possibilities and perspectives,” Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 289–296, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. M. Huber, V. Leber, B. M. Gramer et al., “Myocardium: dynamic versus single-shot CT perfusion imaging,” Radiology, vol. 269, no. 2, pp. 378–386, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. F. Schwarz, R. Hinkel, E. Baloch et al., “Myocardial CT perfusion imaging in a large animal model: comparison of dynamic versus single-phase acquisitions,” JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 1229–1238, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. A. E. Iskandrian, T. M. Bateman, L. Belardinelli et al., “Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging: results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial,” Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 645–658, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. A. Roghi, B. Palmieri, W. Crivellaro, R. Sara, M. Puttini, and F. Faletra, “Preoperative assessment of cardiac risk in noncardiac major vascular surgery,” The American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 169–174, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. L. Romero and C. de Virgilio, “Preoperative cardiac risk assessment: an updated approach,” Archives of Surgery, vol. 136, no. 12, pp. 1370–1376, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. M. Bauer, N. S. Cayne, and F. J. Veith, “New developments in the preoperative evaluation and perioperative management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing vascular surgery,” Journal of Vascular Surgery, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 242–251, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. M. D. Kertai, J. Klein, J. J. Bax, and D. Poldermans, “Predicting perioperative cardiac risk,” Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 240–257, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. R. C. Cury, T. M. Kitt, K. Feaheny, J. Akin, and R. T. George, “Regadenoson-stress myocardial CT perfusion and single-photon emission CT: rationale, design, and acquisition methods of a prospective, multicenter, multivendor comparison,” Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 2–12, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. N. Bettencourt, A. Chiribiri, A. Schuster et al., “Direct comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance and multidetector computed tomography stress-rest perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 1099–1107, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. V. C. Mehra, C. Valdiviezo, A. Arbab-Zadeh et al., “A stepwise approach to the visual interpretation of CT-based myocardial perfusion,” Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 357–369, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. A. Rossi, A. Uitterdijk, M. Dijkshoorn et al., “Quantification of myocardial blood flow by adenosine-stress CT perfusion imaging in pigs during various degrees of stenosis correlates well with coronary artery blood flow and fractional flow reserve,” European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 331–338, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. F. Bamberg, R. Hinkel, F. Schwarz et al., “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,” Investigative Radiology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 71–77, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. B. S. Ko, J. D. Cameron, M. Leung et al., “Combined CT coronary angiography and stress myocardial perfusion imaging for hemodynamically significant stenoses in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: a comparison with fractional flow reserve,” JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 1097–1111, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. N. H. J. Pijls, “Fractional flow reserve to guide coronary revascularization,” Circulation Journal, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 561–569, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus