RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Versus CT Coronary Angiography: When to Use Which?
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JO J Nucl Med
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 1079
OP 1086
DO 10.2967/jnumed.110.081133
VO 52
IS 7
A1 Balaji Tamarappoo
A1 Rory Hachamovitch
YR 2011
UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/52/7/1079.abstract
AB Both anatomy- and physiology-based approaches to patient management have advantages and limitations. Compared with the latter, the former has a superior ability to exclude disease and does not miss high-risk coronary artery disease (CAD). However, it is limited by a possibility of overestimating the severity of CAD and of potentially failing to determine which posttest therapeutic approach optimizes treatment benefit. On the other hand, although a physiology-based approach could potentially identify optimal therapeutic strategies, the possibility of both false-positive and false-negative findings is a concern. This review incorporates some of the more recent advances in CT coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), including PET MPI, into a discussion of anatomic versus physiologic imaging and provides our perspective on how an anatomy-based testing strategy centered in CT coronary angiography versus a physiology-based testing strategy with MPI may be clinically used for the evaluation of known or suspected CAD in symptomatic patients.