Risk assessment and predictive value of coronary artery disease testing.

Abstract

This review highlights and compares risk assessment, predictive accuracy, and economic outcomes for 3 commonly applied cardiac imaging procedures: stress myocardial perfusion SPECT or PET and coronary CT angiography (CCTA). This review highlights an expansive evidence base for stress myocardial perfusion imaging and reveals a decided advantage for higher-risk patients, notably those who have established coronary artery disease (CAD). It is likely that the use of CCTA will continue to expand, particularly for patients with more atypical symptoms and patients with a lower likelihood of CAD. Despite a high level of evidence, comparative research is not available across modalities that could definitively drive utilization of cardiac imaging modalities.