Why the study?
Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) can detect coronary lesions potentially causing MINOCA, but its early diagnostic role remains unclear.
Does early CCTA combined with CMR improve the detection of coronary mechanisms underlying ischaemic damage in patients with MINOCA compared to ICA?
Observational (n=77)
Yes
Does early CCTA combined with CMR improve the detection of coronary mechanisms underlying ischaemic damage in patients with MINOCA compared to ICA?
Absolute Event Rate: 49.4% vs 45.5%
p-value: p=0.084 per-patient, 0.029 per-vessel
Combined CCTA and CMR provides strong diagnostic value for identifying coronary mechanisms underlying ischaemic damage in MINOCA patients.
Background Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) offers a non-invasive way to detect coronary lesions potentially causing myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA), but its early diagnostic role remains unclear. Purpose To evaluate the value of combining early CCTA and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in a non-invasive approach for MINOCA. Methods This prospective, multicentric, observational study evaluated MINOCA patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography (ICA), followed within 7 days by CMR and CCTA. Non-ischaemic aetiologies were excluded. CCTA assessed high-risk plaques (HRP), myocardial bridges (MB), and spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD)<50%. Patients were grouped as MINOCA-CT+ or MINOCA-CT− based on CCTA findings. The primary endpoint was concordance between CCTA-detected lesions and CMR-identified ischaemic damage in the same territory, compared with ICA. Diagnostic performance was further evaluated via ROC analysis. Results Among 77 confirmed MINOCA patients, 42 (54.6%) had coronary lesions on CCTA. HRP were found in 35 (45.5%), MB in 7 (9%), and no SCAD. MINOCA-CT+ patients had greater total plaque volume than MINOCA-CT−. CMR showed ischaemic damage in 56 patients (72.7%). MINOCA-CT+ patients exhibited greater myocardial edema (4.3% vs 9.2% of the left ventricle; P=0.003) and infarct size (2.44% vs 6%; P=0.003). Concordance between CCTA lesions and CMR ischaemic pattern was 49.4% (vs 45.5% with ICA; P=0.084 per-patient, P=0.029 per-vessel). Concordance between CCTA lesion documentation and CMR ischaemic damage localization was 49.4% (vs 45.5% with ICA; P=0.084 per-patient, P=0.029 per-vessel). CCTA’s positive predictive value for detecting ischaemic damage on CMR was 91% (per-patient) and 78% (per-vessel); negative predictive value was 49% and 89%, respectively—both superior to ICA. ROC analysis confirmed CCTA's strong performance (AUC 0.74 per-patient, 0.78 per-vessel). Conclusion Combined CCTA and CMR identified ischaemic injury and coronary abnormalities in a substantial proportion of MINOCA patients. CCTA demonstrated strong diagnostic value in revealing coronary mechanisms underlying ischaemic damage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Canton et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) (n=77). Early CCTA and CMR vs. Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was evaluated on Concordance between CCTA-detected lesions and CMR-identified ischaemic damage in the same territory, compared with ICA (p=0.084 per-patient, 0.029 per-vessel).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: