Cardiac imaging has a pivotal role in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ischaemic heart disease. SPECT is most commonly used for clinical myocardial perfusion imaging, whereas PET is the clinical reference standard for the quantification of myocardial perfusion. MRI does not involve exposure to ionizing radiation, similar to echocardiography , which can be performed at the bedside. CT perfusion imaging is not frequently used but CT offers coronary angiography data, and invasive catheter-b ased methods can measure coronary flow and pressure. Technical improvements to the quantification of pathophysiological parameters of myocardial ischaemia can be achieved. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each technique were derived following a European quantitative cardiac imaging meeting and using a real-t ime Delphi process. SPECT using new detectors allows the quantification of myocardial blood flow and is now also suited to patients with a high BMI. PET is well suited to patients with multivessel disease to confirm or exclude balanced ischaemia. MRI allows the evaluation of patients with complex disease who would benefit from imaging of function and fibrosis in addition to perfusion. Echocardiography remains the preferred technique for assessing ischaemia in bedside situations, whereas CT has the greatest value for combined quantification of stenosis and characterization of atherosclerosis in relation to myocardial ischaemia. In patients with a high probability of needing invasive treatment, invasive coronary flow and pressure measurement is well suited to guide treatment decisions. In this Consensus Statement, we summarize the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future technological potential of each imaging modality.
on behalf of the Quantitative Cardiac Imaging Study Group et al. - 2020 - Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the asse.pdf:files/14/on behalf of the Quantitative Cardiac Imaging Study Group et al. - 2020 - Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the asse.pdf:application/pdf
%0 Journal Article
%1 on_behalf_of_the_quantitative_cardiac_imaging_study_group_clinical_2020
%A on behalf of the Quantitative Cardiac Imaging Study Group,
%A Dewey, Marc
%A Siebes, Maria
%A Kachelrieß, Marc
%A Kofoed, Klaus F.
%A Maurovich-Horvat, Pál
%A Nikolaou, Konstantin
%A Bai, Wenjia
%A Kofler, Andreas
%A Manka, Robert
%A Kozerke, Sebastian
%A Chiribiri, Amedeo
%A Schaeffter, Tobias
%A Michallek, Florian
%A Bengel, Frank
%A Nekolla, Stephan
%A Knaapen, Paul
%A Lubberink, Mark
%A Senior, Roxy
%A Tang, Meng-Xing
%A Piek, Jan J.
%A Van De Hoef, Tim
%A Martens, Johannes
%A Schreiber, Laura
%D 2020
%J Nat Rev Cardiol
%K imported
%N 7
%P 427--450
%R 10.1038/s41569-020-0341-8
%T Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia
%U https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-020-0341-8
%V 17
%X Cardiac imaging has a pivotal role in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ischaemic heart disease. SPECT is most commonly used for clinical myocardial perfusion imaging, whereas PET is the clinical reference standard for the quantification of myocardial perfusion. MRI does not involve exposure to ionizing radiation, similar to echocardiography , which can be performed at the bedside. CT perfusion imaging is not frequently used but CT offers coronary angiography data, and invasive catheter-b ased methods can measure coronary flow and pressure. Technical improvements to the quantification of pathophysiological parameters of myocardial ischaemia can be achieved. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each technique were derived following a European quantitative cardiac imaging meeting and using a real-t ime Delphi process. SPECT using new detectors allows the quantification of myocardial blood flow and is now also suited to patients with a high BMI. PET is well suited to patients with multivessel disease to confirm or exclude balanced ischaemia. MRI allows the evaluation of patients with complex disease who would benefit from imaging of function and fibrosis in addition to perfusion. Echocardiography remains the preferred technique for assessing ischaemia in bedside situations, whereas CT has the greatest value for combined quantification of stenosis and characterization of atherosclerosis in relation to myocardial ischaemia. In patients with a high probability of needing invasive treatment, invasive coronary flow and pressure measurement is well suited to guide treatment decisions. In this Consensus Statement, we summarize the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future technological potential of each imaging modality.
@article{on_behalf_of_the_quantitative_cardiac_imaging_study_group_clinical_2020,
abstract = {Cardiac imaging has a pivotal role in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ischaemic heart disease. SPECT is most commonly used for clinical myocardial perfusion imaging, whereas PET is the clinical reference standard for the quantification of myocardial perfusion. MRI does not involve exposure to ionizing radiation, similar to echocardiography , which can be performed at the bedside. CT perfusion imaging is not frequently used but CT offers coronary angiography data, and invasive catheter-b ased methods can measure coronary flow and pressure. Technical improvements to the quantification of pathophysiological parameters of myocardial ischaemia can be achieved. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each technique were derived following a European quantitative cardiac imaging meeting and using a real-t ime Delphi process. SPECT using new detectors allows the quantification of myocardial blood flow and is now also suited to patients with a high BMI. PET is well suited to patients with multivessel disease to confirm or exclude balanced ischaemia. MRI allows the evaluation of patients with complex disease who would benefit from imaging of function and fibrosis in addition to perfusion. Echocardiography remains the preferred technique for assessing ischaemia in bedside situations, whereas CT has the greatest value for combined quantification of stenosis and characterization of atherosclerosis in relation to myocardial ischaemia. In patients with a high probability of needing invasive treatment, invasive coronary flow and pressure measurement is well suited to guide treatment decisions. In this Consensus Statement, we summarize the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future technological potential of each imaging modality.},
added-at = {2023-08-28T10:32:21.000+0200},
author = {{on behalf of the Quantitative Cardiac Imaging Study Group} and Dewey, Marc and Siebes, Maria and Kachelrieß, Marc and Kofoed, Klaus F. and Maurovich-Horvat, Pál and Nikolaou, Konstantin and Bai, Wenjia and Kofler, Andreas and Manka, Robert and Kozerke, Sebastian and Chiribiri, Amedeo and Schaeffter, Tobias and Michallek, Florian and Bengel, Frank and Nekolla, Stephan and Knaapen, Paul and Lubberink, Mark and Senior, Roxy and Tang, Meng-Xing and Piek, Jan J. and Van De Hoef, Tim and Martens, Johannes and Schreiber, Laura},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2d30e9c2d51069426613fd04c5c1fe19c/serafsoft},
doi = {10.1038/s41569-020-0341-8},
file = {on behalf of the Quantitative Cardiac Imaging Study Group et al. - 2020 - Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the asse.pdf:files/14/on behalf of the Quantitative Cardiac Imaging Study Group et al. - 2020 - Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the asse.pdf:application/pdf},
interhash = {3e0ef02f66544b87c36178f81d2df555},
intrahash = {d30e9c2d51069426613fd04c5c1fe19c},
issn = {1759-5002, 1759-5010},
journal = {Nat Rev Cardiol},
keywords = {imported},
language = {en},
month = jul,
number = 7,
pages = {427--450},
timestamp = {2023-08-28T10:32:33.000+0200},
title = {Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia},
url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-020-0341-8},
urldate = {2023-06-13},
volume = 17,
year = 2020
}