These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Coronary artery abnormalities in Kawasaki disease: comparison between CT and MR coronary angiography.
    Author: Kim JW, Goo HW.
    Journal: Acta Radiol; 2013 Mar 01; 54(2):156-63. PubMed ID: 23482350.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Although CT coronary angiography (CTCA) and MR coronary angiography (MRCA) are increasingly used in patients with Kawasaki disease, comparison of coronary artery assessibility and diagnostic performance between the two imaging modalities has been rarely performed. PURPOSE: To investigate which imaging modality, CTCA or MRCA, is better for evaluating coronary artery abnormalities in patients with Kawasaki disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2003 and 2011, 56 patients (38 boys/men; age range, 1-24 years) with Kawasaki disease underwent CTCA or MRCA (group A). Of these, 17 underwent both CTCA and MRCA (group B). Visibility of 11 coronary arterial segments in each patient was graded on a four-point scale. Coronary artery aneurysm, stenosis, and occlusion were evaluated by CTCA and MRCA, based on a reference standard obtained from cardiac catheterization, echocardiography, follow-up CTCA and MRCA, and clinical history. Coronary artery assessibility and diagnostic performance were compared between CTCA and MRCA. RESULTS: In per-segment analysis, more segments were assessable on CTCA than on MRCA in both groups. In per-patient analysis of group B, no significant difference in the assessibility was found between CTCA (95.0%, 128.3/135 segments) and MRCA (92.4%, 124.8/135 segments) (P > 0.05). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of CTCA vs. MRCA were 93.1% vs. 77.9% (P < 0.001), 99.2% vs. 99.7% (P = 0.65), 96.8% vs. 98.7% (P = 0.65), 98.2% vs. 94.1% (P < 0.001), and 98.0% vs. 94.9% (P = 0.008), respectively, in group A, and 91.8% vs. 70.4% (P < 0.001), 99.5% vs. 99.5% (P = 1.000), 98.5% vs. 98.0% (P = 1.000), 97.2% vs. 91.1% (P = 0.006), and 97.6% vs. 92.3% (P = 0.004), respectively, in group B. CONCLUSION: Although CTCA and MRCA show comparable assessibility in per-patient analysis, CTCA shows higher diagnostic performance than MRCA for evaluating coronary artery abnormalities in patients with Kawasaki disease.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]