CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Effect of Medication Co-payment Vouchers on P2Y12 Inhibitor Use and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Myocardial Infarction: The ARTEMIS Randomized Clinical Trial Complete or Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction Imaging Coronary Anatomy and Reducing Myocardial Infarction Open sesame technique in percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction Deficiency of GATA3-Positive Macrophages Improves Cardiac Function Following Myocardial Infarction or Pressure Overload Hypertrophy Optimal medical therapy vs. coronary revascularization for patients presenting with chronic total occlusion: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score adjusted studies

Review Article2018 Feb 1;252:229-233.

JOURNAL:Int J Cardiol. Article Link

Diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for the detection of coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Kiaos A, Tziatzios I, Karamitsos TD et al. Keywords: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Coronary artery disease; Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis; Stress perfusion

ABSTRACT


INTRODUCTION - The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of qualitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to diagnose ischemia-causing lesions according to different definitions of significant coronary artery disease (CAD), and magnetic field strength.


METHODS - We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating diagnostic performance of qualitative stress perfusion CMR for diagnosis of CAD versus coronary angiography or fractionalflow reserve (FFR) from inception to 10 September 2017. We used hierarchical models to synthesize the available data.


RESULTS - Sixty-seven studies (7113 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The patient-based analysis of studies using FFR as the reference standard demonstrated a mean sensitivity of 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.93) and a mean specificity of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89). The patient-based analyses for detecting coronary stenosis ≥50% and coronary stenosis ≥70% at 1.5T and for detecting coronary stenosis ≥50% and coronary stenosis ≥70%, at 3T, demonstrated a mean sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.95), and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79-0.96), respectively; with a mean specificity of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.80), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.71-0.81), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.86), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.59-0.85).


CONCLUSION - Qualitative stress perfusion CMR has high accuracy for the diagnosis of CAD, irrespective of the reference standard and the magnet strength. Studies using FFR as the reference standard had higher diagnostic accuracy on a patient level compared to studies using coronary angiography, with a notable difference in specificity.


Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.