Comparative study of myocardial perfusion imaging and 64 multi-slice spiral CT for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9780.2010.06.004
- VernacularTitle:核素心肌灌注显像与64层螺旋CT诊断冠状动脉疾病的对比研究
- Author:
Jun, ZHAO
;
Long-bao, XU
;
Ren-ming, WAN
;
Guang-lei, FAN
;
Jian-wen, LIU
;
Shu-xing, HUANG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Coronary disease;
Tomography,emission-computed,single-photon;
Tomography,X-ray computed;
MIBI
- From:Chinese Journal of Nuclear Medicine
2010;30(6):367-371
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the diagnostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and 64 multi-slice spiral CT (64-MSCT) for coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods Fifty-two patients with suspected or known CAD were included in the study. Each patient underwent both stress and rest MPI,MSCT as well as conventional coronary angiography (CAG) within 1 month. The stress and rest MPI were scored by a 5-grade criteria (0 ～ 4) based on 17 coronary artery segments. The difference between summed stress and rest scores ＞ 1 was defined as myocardial ischemia. Stenosis in one main vessel or one main branch of the main vessel ≥50% was defined as myocardial ischemia by MSCT. CAG was used as the reference for comparison. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 13. 0 software. Kappa value was used to test the accordance of MPI and MSCT results. X2 test was used to evaluate the difference between MPI and MSCT results. Results The patient-based sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy of MPI and MSCT for the diagnosis of CAD were 86.7% (26/30), 77.3% ( 17/22),83.9% (26/31), 81.0% ( 17/21), 82.7% (43/52) and 83.3% ( 25/30), 86.4% ( 19/22), 89.3%( 25/28), 79.2% ( 19/24), 84.6% (44/52), respectively. The vessel-based sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy of MPI and MSCT were 74.5% (38/51), 81.0% (85/105 ), 65.5% (38/58), 86.7% ( 85/98), 78.8% ( 123/156 ) and 90.2% (46/51 ), 88.6% ( 93/105 ),79.3 % (46/58), 94.9% (93/98), 89.1% ( 139/156), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between MPI and MSCT for either patient or lesion-based diagnosis (X2 =0.44, 0.21, both P ＞0.05 ). 96.0% (24/25) patients with both abnormal MPI and MSCT positive were valified by CAG while 83.3% (15/18) patients with both MPI and MSCT negative were excluded by CAG. Conclusions Both MPI and MSCT are reliable diagnostic modalities for CAD. They also provide complementary diagnostic value to each other.
