Authors/Task Force Members, John J.V. McMurray, Stamatis Adamopoulos et al.|European Heart Journal|2012
Cited by 6.9kOpen Access
peer reviewed
University Hospital of Lausanne
ORCID: 0000-0002-9966-6149Publishes on Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics, Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications, Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors. 379 papers and 26.7k citations.
Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.
peer reviewed
The ESC/EACTS Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and the EACTS and were arrived at after careful consideration of the available evidence at the time they were written. Health professionals are encouraged to take them fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. The guidelines do not, however, override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate decisions in the circumstances of the individual patients, in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and necessary, the patient's guardian or carer. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the rules and regulations applicable to drugs and devices at the time of prescription.
peer reviewed
peer reviewed
AIMS: To determine in a multicentre, multivendor trial the diagnostic performance for perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance (perfusion-CMR) in comparison with coronary X-ray angiography (CXA) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 241 eligible patients from 18 centres, 234 were randomly dosed with 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.075, or 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA-BMA (Omniscantrade mark, GE-Healthcare) per stress (0.42 mg/kg adenosine) and rest perfusion study. Coronary artery disease (CAD) was defined as diameter stenosis > or =50% on quantitative CXA. Five CMR and eight SPECT studies (of 225 complete studies) were excluded from analyses due to inadequate quality (three blinded readers scored per modality). The comparison of CMR vs. SPECT was based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Perfusion-CMR at the optimal CM dose (0.1 mmol/kg) had similar performance as SPECT, if only the SPECT studies of the 42 patients with this dose were considered [area under ROC curve (AUC): 0.86 +/- 0.06 vs. 0.75 +/- 0.09 for SPECT, P = 0.12]; however, diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR was better vs. the entire SPECT population (AUC: 0.67 +/- 0.05, n = 212, P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre, multivendor trial, ROC analyses suggest perfusion-CMR as a valuable alternative to SPECT for CAD detection showing equal performance in the head-to-head comparison. Comparing perfusion-CMR with the entire SPECT population suggests CMR superiority over SPECT, which warrants further evaluation in larger trials.