Comparison of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography in Women With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease From the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease (CE-MARC) Trial

Background— Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in women, and underdiagnosis contributes to the high mortality. This study compared the sex-specific diagnostic performance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Methods and Results— A total of 235 women and 393 men with suspected angina underwent CMR, SPECT, and x-ray angiography as part of the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease (CE-MARC) study. CMR comprised adenosine stress/rest perfusion, cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, and magnetic resonance coronary angiography. Gated adenosine stress/rest SPECT was performed with 99mTc-tetrofosmin. For CMR, the sensitivity in women and men was similar (88.7% versus 85.6%; P=0.57), as was the specificity (83.5% versus 82.8%; P=0.86). For SPECT, the sensitivity was significantly worse in women than in men (50.9% versus 70.8%; P=0.007), but the specificities were similar (84.1% versus 81.3%; P=0.48). The sensitivity in both the female and male groups was significantly higher with CMR than SPECT (P<0.0001 for both), but the specificity was similar (P=0.77 and P=1.00, respectively). For perfusion-only components, CMR outperformed SPECT in women (area under the curve, 0.90 versus 0.67; P<0.0001) and in men (area under the curve, 0.89 versus 0.74; P<0.0001). Diagnostic accuracy was similar in both sexes with perfusion CMR (P=1.00) but was significantly worse in women with SPECT (P<0.0001). Conclusions— In both sexes, CMR has greater sensitivity than SPECT. Unlike SPECT, there are no significant sex differences in the diagnostic performance of CMR. These findings, plus an absence of ionizing radiation exposure, mean that CMR should be more widely adopted in women with suspected coronary artery disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN77246133.

[1]  A. van Rossum,et al.  MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. , 2008, European heart journal.

[2]  M. Motwani,et al.  High-Resolution Versus Standard-Resolution Cardiovascular MR Myocardial Perfusion Imaging for the Detection of Coronary Artery Disease , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging.

[3]  E. Antman,et al.  ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines). , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  F. Harrell,et al.  Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of exercise electrocardiography. Multivariable analysis. , 1984, The American journal of medicine.

[5]  J. Schwitter,et al.  Superior diagnostic performance of perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus SPECT to detect coronary artery disease: The secondary endpoints of the multicenter multivendor MR-IMPACT II (Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary Artery Disease Trial) , 2012, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[6]  J. Heo,et al.  Detection of coronary artery disease in women with use of stress single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging , 1997, Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.

[7]  Bernard J. Gersh,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2010 .

[8]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[9]  G. Diamond.  A clinically relevant classification of chest discomfort. , 1983, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  L. Shaw,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Exercise Electrocardiography With or Without Myocardial Perfusion Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography in Women With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the What Is the Optimal Method for Ischemia Evaluation in Women (WOMEN) Trial , 2011, Circulation.

[11]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Clinical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in coronary heart disease: The CE-MARC study , 2009, Trials.

[12]  M. Robson,et al.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3-tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with 1.5-tesla. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  W. Kannel,et al.  Patterns of coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality in the sexes: a 26-year follow-up of the Framingham population. , 1986, American heart journal.

[14]  Matthew Wright,et al.  Graphical analysis of bra size calculation procedures , 2002 .

[15]  M. Motwani,et al.  High-resolution versus standard-resolution cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease , 2012, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[16]  Thomas Mills,et al.  National Study of Physician Awareness and Adherence to Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Guidelines , 2005, Circulation.

[17]  D. Mozaffarian,et al.  Heart disease and stroke statistics--2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. , 2010, Circulation.

[18]  S. Reis,et al.  Insights from the NHLBI-Sponsored Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study: Part II: gender differences in presentation, diagnosis, and outcome with regard to gender-based pathophysiology of atherosclerosis and macrovascular and microvascular coronary disease. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[19]  R. Redberg,et al.  Diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease in women: systematic reviews of evidence on selected topics. , 2003, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[20]  K. Bailey,et al.  Effects of adjustment for referral bias on the sensitivity and specificity of single photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. , 2002, The American journal of medicine.

[21]  Carl J Pepine,et al.  Insights from the NHLBI-Sponsored Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study: Part I: gender differences in traditional and novel risk factors, symptom evaluation, and gender-optimized diagnostic strategies. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  Guido Germano,et al.  Combined quantitative supine-prone myocardial perfusion spect improves detection of coronary artery disease and normalcy rates in women , 2007, Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.

[23]  C Fraser,et al.  Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[24]  V. Hombach,et al.  Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance first pass perfusion imaging is equally potent in female compared to male patients with coronary artery disease , 2009, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[25]  Harlan M. Krumholz,et al.  Sex-Based Differences in Early Mortality after Myocardial Infarction , 1999 .

[26]  Joseph S Alpert,et al.  ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines). , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[27]  Hyuk-Jae Chang,et al.  Comparison of stress perfusion MRI and SPECT for detection of myocardial ischemia in patients with angiographically proven three-vessel coronary artery disease. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[28]  Scott D Flamm,et al.  Role of noninvasive testing in the clinical evaluation of women with suspected coronary artery disease: Consensus statement from the Cardiac Imaging Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervent , 2005, Circulation.

[29]  D. Crabbe,et al.  Lower diagnostic accuracy of thallium-201 SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in women: an effect of smaller chamber size. , 1996, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[30]  R. Pettigrew,et al.  The importance of work-up (verification) bias correction in assessing the accuracy of SPECT thallium-201 testing for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  R. Kim,et al.  Value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance stress perfusion testing for the detection of coronary artery disease in women. , 2008, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[32]  A. Pries,et al.  Ischaemic heart disease in women: are there sex differences in pathophysiology and risk factors? Position paper from the working group on coronary pathophysiology and microcirculation of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2011, Cardiovascular research.

[33]  J. Soler‐Soler,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of technetium-99m-MIBI myocardial SPECT in women and men. , 1998, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[34]  M. Mugford,et al.  The Social Support and Family Health Study: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of two alternative forms of postnatal support for mothers living in disadvantaged inner-city areas. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[35]  G. Heller,et al.  Gender differences in the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: A bivariate meta-analysis , 2013, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology.

[36]  S. Plein,et al.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial , 2012, The Lancet.

[37]  R A Greenes,et al.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. , 1983, Biometrics.