• MR-IMPACT II Trial, a multicenter study of 533 patients comparing the accuracy of perfusion CMR, SPECT against the gold standard coronary angiography. Perfusion CMR was non-inferior compared to SPECT. [1] • CE-MARC Trial, a single center study of 752 patients showed the perfusion CMR has higher sensitivity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy when compared with SPECT.[2] • Jaarsma et al. in a meta-analysis of 37 studies showed that perfusion CMR has a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 76%, similar to PET and superior to SPECT. [3] • De Jong et al. in a meta-analysis of 28 studies comparing perfusion CMR to SPECT and stress echocardiography, perfusion CMR had superior accuracy. [4] • Most recently, Danad et al. in a meta-analysis of 23 studies comparing perfusion CMR, SPECT, stress echocardiography, invasive coronary angiography, coronary computed tomography angiography, fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from CCTA (FFRCT) to an invasive FFR reference standard found that perfusion CMR had the highest performance for the diagnosis of ischemia-causing CAD.[5]
ABSTRACT
PUBLICATION RECORD
- Publication year
2020
- Venue
Definitions
- Publication date
2020-02-07
- Fields of study
Not labeled
- Identifiers
- External record
- Source metadata
Semantic Scholar
CITATION MAP
EXTRACTION MAP
CLAIMS
- No claims are published for this paper.
CONCEPTS
- No concepts are published for this paper.
REFERENCES
Showing 1-7 of 7 references · Page 1 of 1
CITED BY
Showing 1-53 of 53 citing papers · Page 1 of 1