Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 149 No. 1920 (2019)

Use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and single photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease in Switzerland

  • Jeanne du Fay de Lavallaz
  • Michael J. Zellweger
  • Stefan Felder
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2019.20080
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2019;149:w20080
Published
19.05.2019

Summary

BACKGROUND

Direct invasive testing in the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) involves high costs and relevant risks. By comparison, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) are noninvasive diagnostic tests. SPECT is currently the most widely used diagnostic technique, but new medical and economic evidence favours CMR. Guidelines do not recommend one technique in preference to the other, and their use in Switzerland is poorly documented, as a scoping study by the Swiss Medical Board reported. We aimed at a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the use of these diagnostic techniques in Swiss hospitals.

METHODS

We contacted nine Swiss hospitals to obtain the number of SPECT/CMR investigations used to diagnose stable CAD in 2014–2016 and submitted a questionnaire to investigate the advantages and limitations of the two imaging techniques. In addition, two experts in SPECT and CMR, respectively, at two university hospitals were interviewed, using open questions.

RESULTS

Data were obtained from 8 hospitals, and 22 questionnaires were returned. In Switzerland, both techniques have been implemented very differently in different hospitals, but the overall number of diagnostic procedures has increased. The questionnaires reported lower scores for CMR regarding the availability of the scans, contraindications and the suitability of the technique for the diagnosis of CAD. The experts described potential conflicts of interest in some institutions, depending on how the cardiology and radiology departments collaborated, and highlighted the debated results of studies comparing CMR with SPECT for the diagnosis of CAD. The main conclusion drawn from the interviews was the recommendation of a patient-centred evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The use of SPECT versus CMR in Switzerland for the diagnosis of stable CAD is heterogeneous, but reflects the guidelines, which do not distinguish between the two diagnostic techniques. Expert opinions underlined that discussion should not be so much about the choice of the diagnostic modality but about how a clinical question in a patient can best be answered.

References

  1. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(10):886–95. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0907272
  2. Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, Budaj A, et al., the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(38):2949–3003. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht296
  3. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, Brown JM, Nixon J, Everett CC, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):453–60. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61335-4
  4. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, Lombardi M, Al-Saadi N, Ahlstrom H, 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. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(4):480–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehm617
  5. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, Al-Saadi N, Sauer E, Huettle K, et al.; MR-IMPACT Investigators. MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(10):775–81. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs022
  6. Greenwood JP, Herzog BA, Brown JM, Everett CC, Nixon J, Bijsterveld P, et al. Prognostic value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography in suspected coronary heart disease: Long-term follow-up of a prospective, diagnostic accuracy cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(1):1–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1801
  7. von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Schulz-Menger J. Role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18(1):6. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-016-0225-6
  8. Bonow RO. What’s past is prologue: advances in cardiovascular imaging. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):393–5. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61671-1
  9. Einstein AJ. Letter by Einstein regarding article "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". Circulation. 2014;130(24):e339. doi:. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.008737
  10. Greenwood JP, Brown JM, Berry C ; CE-MARC 2 Investigators. Alternatives in the Evaluation of Suspected Coronary Heart Disease-Reply. JAMA. 2017;317(2):212–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.18335
  11. Thom H, West NEJ, Hughes V, Dyer M, Buxton M, Sharples LD, et al.; CECaT study group. Cost-effectiveness of initial stress cardiovascular MR, stress SPECT or stress echocardiography as a gate-keeper test, compared with upfront invasive coronary angiography in the investigation and management of patients with stable chest pain: mid-term outcomes from the CECaT randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2):e003419. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003419
  12. OECD. Computed tomography (CT) exams (indicator). 2018. doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/3c994537-en (Accessed on 01 October 2018).
  13. OCDE. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams (indicator). 2018. doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/1d89353f-en (Accessed on 01 October 2018).
  14. SMB. “Swiss Medical Board.” Themenliste Stand Januar 2016. 2016. http://www.medical-board.ch/fileadmin/docs/public/mb/themenumfrage/themenliste_januar_2016.pdf.
  15. Dweck MR, Williams MC, Moss AJ, Newby DE, Fayad ZA. Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Ischemic Heart Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(20):2201–16. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.08.047
  16. Foley JR, Plein S, Greenwood JP. Assessment of stable coronary artery disease by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: Current and emerging techniques. World J Cardiol. 2017;9(2):92–108. doi:.https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v9.i2.92
  17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guideline CG95. Chest pain of recent onset: Assessment and diagnosis of recent onset chest pain or discomfort of suspected cardiac origin (update). 2016;73(March):4–27.
  18. Pletscher M, Walker S, Moschetti K, Pinget C, Wasserfallen JB, Greenwood JP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of functional cardiac imaging in the diagnostic work-up of coronary heart disease. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2016;2(3):201–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcw008
  19. Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Marwick TH, Lauer MS, Heller GV, et al.; Economics of Noninvasive Diagnosis (END) Multicenter Study Group. The economic consequences of available diagnostic and prognostic strategies for the evaluation of stable angina patients: an observational assessment of the value of precatheterization ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(3):661–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00606-8

Most read articles by the same author(s)