Diagnostic advantage of stress computed tomography myocardial perfusion over single-photon emission computed tomography for the assessment of myocardial ischemia

CAD-RADS™ 2.0 - 2022 Coronary Artery Disease - Reporting and Data System An Expert Consensus Document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the North America Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI)

Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) was created to standardize reporting system for patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and to guide possible next steps in patient management. The goal of this updated 2022 CAD-RADS 2.0 is to improve the initial reporting system for CCTA by considering new technical developments in Cardiac CT, including data from recent clinical trials and new clinical guidelines. The updated CAD-RADS classification will follow an established framework of stenosis, plaque burden, and modifiers, which will include assessment of lesion-specific ischemia using CT fractional-flow-reserve (CT-FFR) or myocardial CT perfusion (CTP), when performed. Similar to the method used in the original CAD-RADS version, the determinant for stenosis severity classification will be the most severe coronary artery luminal stenosis on a per-patient basis, ranging from CAD-RADS 0 (zero) for absence of any plaque or stenosis to CAD-RADS 5 indicating the presence of at least one totally occluded coronary artery. Given the increasing data supporting the prognostic relevance of coronary plaque burden, this document will provide various methods to estimate and report total plaque burden. The addition of P1 to P4 descriptors are used to denote increasing categories of plaque burden. The main goal of CAD-RADS, which should always be interpreted together with the impression found in the report, remains to facilitate communication of test results with referring physicians along with suggestions for subsequent patient management. In addition, CAD-RADS will continue to provide a framework of standardization that may benefit education, research, peer-review, artificial intelligence development, clinical trial design, population health and quality assurance with the ultimate goal of improving patient care. Keywords: Coronary Artery Disease, Coronary CTA, CAD-RADS, Reporting and Data System, Stenosis Severity, Report Standardization Terminology, Plaque Burden, Ischemia Supplemental material is available for this article. This article is published synchronously in Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging, Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, Journal of the American College of Radiology, and International Journal for Cardiovascular Imaging. © 2022 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by RSNA with permission.

Diagnostic performance of myocardial perfusion imaging with conventional and CZT single-photon emission computed tomography in detecting coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of conventional SPECT (C-SPECT) and cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT)-SPECT systems in detecting angiographically proven coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

Studies published between January 2000 and February 2018 were identified by database search. We included studies assessing C-SPECT or CZT-SPECT as a diagnostic test to evaluate patients for the presence of CAD, defined as at least 50% diameter stenosis on invasive coronary angiography. A study was eligible regardless of whether patients were referred for suspected or known CAD.

RESULTS

We identified 40 eligible articles (25 C-SPECT and 15 CZT-SPECT studies) including 7334 patients (4997 in C-SPECT and 2337 in CZT-SPECT studies). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 66% for C-SPECT and 89% and 69% for CZT-SPECT imaging studies. The area under the curve was slightly higher for CZT-SPECT (0.89) compared to C-SPECT (0.83); accordingly, the summary diagnostic OR was 17 for CZT-SPECT and 11 for C-SPECT. The accuracy of the two tests slightly differs between C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT (chi-square 11.28, P < .05). At meta-regression analysis, no significant association between both sensitivity and specificity and demographical and clinical variables considered was found for C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT studies.

CONCLUSIONS

C-SPECT and CZT-SPECT have good diagnostic performance in detecting angiographic proven CAD, with a slightly higher accuracy for CZT-SPECT. This result supports the use of the novel gamma cameras in clinical routine practices also considering the improvements in acquisition time and radiation exposure reduction.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for detecting hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease between cardiac magnetic resonance and nuclear medical imaging: A meta-analysis

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging between cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and nuclear medical imaging, including single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET), for the diagnosis of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) with fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched PubMed and Embase for all published studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging modalities, including CMR, SPECT, and PET, to diagnose hemodynamically significant CAD with FFR as the reference standard. A total of 28 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis: 14 CMR, 13 SPECT, and 5 PET articles. The results demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-0.93), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.56-0.79), and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70-0.91), and a pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93), 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89), and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.91) for CMR, SPECT, and PET, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of CMR, PET, and SPECT was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CMR and PET both have high accuracy and SPECT has moderate accuracy to detect hemodynamically significant CAD with FFR as the reference standard. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of CMR at 3.0 T is superior to 1.5 T.