Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

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

Direct Comparison of Whole-Heart Navigator-Gated Magnetic Resonance Coronary Angiography and 40-... 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; Agne`s Pasquet, MD; Jean-Louis Vanoverschelde, MD; Bernhard L. Gerber, MD 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, 6114 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%, P0.001) and enabled identification of more segments (963 versus 726, P0.001) than did WH-MRCA. On a per-segment basis, WH-MRCA had similar http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging Wolters Kluwer Health

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

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/direct-comparison-of-whole-heart-navigator-gated-magnetic-resonance-ujJ19Iwwo0

References (30)

ISSN
1941-9651
eISSN
1942-0080
DOI
10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.107.756304
pmid
19808528
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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; Agne`s Pasquet, MD; Jean-Louis Vanoverschelde, MD; Bernhard L. Gerber, MD 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, 6114 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%, P0.001) and enabled identification of more segments (963 versus 726, P0.001) than did WH-MRCA. On a per-segment basis, WH-MRCA had similar

Journal

Circulation: Cardiovascular ImagingWolters Kluwer Health

Published: Sep 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.