Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Author: de Jong, Marcus C.; Genders, Tessa S. S.; van Geuns, Robert-Jan; Moelker, Adriaan; Hunink, Maria G M

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: de Jong, Marcus C., Tessa S. S. Genders, Robert-Jan van Geuns, Adriaan Moelker, and M. G. Myriam Hunink. 2012. Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Radiology 22(9): 1881-1895.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Objectives: To determine and compare the diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), using conventional coronary angiography (CCA) as the reference standard. Methods: We searched Medline and Embase for literature that evaluated stress MPI for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), contrast-enhanced echocardiography (ECHO), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET). Results: All pooled analyses were based on random effects models. Articles on MRI yielded a total of 2,970 patients from 28 studies, articles on ECHO yielded a sample size of 795 from 10 studies, articles on SPECT yielded 1,323 from 13 studies. For CAD defined as either at least 50 %, at least 70 % or at least 75 % lumen diameter reduction on CCA, the natural logarithms of the diagnostic odds ratio (lnDOR) for MRI (3.63; 95 % CI 3.26–4.00) was significantly higher compared to that of SPECT (2.76; 95 % CI 2.28–3.25; P = 0.006) and that of ECHO (2.83; 95 % CI 2.29–3.37; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the lnDOR of SPECT and ECHO (P = 0.52). Conclusion: Our results suggest that MRI is superior for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD compared with ECHO and SPECT. ECHO and SPECT demonstrated similar diagnostic performance.
Published Version: doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2434-1
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411304/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10576042
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters