Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Feb 2;152(3):167-77. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-3-201002020-00008.

Meta-analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging.

Author information

1
Department of Radiology, Charité Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Two imaging techniques, multislice computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have evolved for noninvasive coronary angiography.

PURPOSE:

To compare CT and MRI for ruling out clinically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in adults with suspected or known CAD.

DATA SOURCES:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science searches from inception through 2 June 2009 and bibliographies of reviews.

STUDY SELECTION:

Prospective English- or German-language studies that compared CT or MRI with conventional coronary angiography in all patients and included sufficient data for compilation of 2 x 2 tables.

DATA EXTRACTION:

2 investigators independently extracted patient and study characteristics; differences were resolved by consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

89 and 20 studies (comprising 7516 and 989 patients) assessed CT and MRI, respectively. Bivariate analysis of data yielded a mean sensitivity and specificity of 97.2% (95% CI, 96.2% to 98.0%) and 87.4% (CI, 84.5% to 89.8%) for CT and 87.1% (CI, 83.0% to 90.3%) and 70.3% (CI, 58.8% to 79.7%) for MRI. In studies that included only patients with suspected CAD, sensitivity and specificity of CT were 97.6% (CI, 96.1% to 98.5%) and 89.2% (CI, 86.0% to 91.8%). Covariate analysis yielded a significantly higher sensitivity for CT scanners with more than 16 rows (98.1% [CI, 97.0% to 99.0%]; P < 0.050) than for older-generation scanners (95.6% [CI, 94.0% to 97.0%]). Heart rates less than 60 beats/min during CT yielded significantly better values for sensitivity than did higher heart rates (P < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS:

Few studies investigated coronary angiography with MRI. Only 5 studies were direct head-to-head comparisons of CT and MRI. Covariate analyses explained only part of the observed heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION:

For ruling out CAD, CT is more accurate than MRI. Scanners with more than 16 rows improve sensitivity, as do slowed heart rates.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:

None.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Health
    Loading ...
    Support Center