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

Abstract

AimsThis 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 resultsWe 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. ConclusionsCMR 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.