Why the study?
What is the diagnostic utility and what are the limitations of various cardiovascular imaging modalities for detecting coronary artery disease in patients with left ventricular dysfunction?
What is the diagnostic utility and what are the limitations of various cardiovascular imaging modalities for detecting coronary artery disease in patients with left ventricular dysfunction?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review highlights the diagnostic utility and limitations of various imaging modalities for detecting coronary artery disease in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.
Incidental diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVD) is common in clinical practice. The prevalence of asymptomatic LVD (Ejection Fraction, EF < 50%) is 6.0% in men and 0.8% in women and is twice as common as symptomatic LVD. The timely and definitive exclusion of an ischemic etiology is central to optimizing care and reducing mortality in LVD. Advances in cardiovascular imaging provide many options for imaging of patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Clinician experience, patient endurance, imaging modality characteristics, cost and safety determine the choice of testing. In this review, we have compared the diagnostic utility of established tests - nuclear and echocardiographic stress testing with newer techniques like coronary computerized tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and highlight their inherent limitations in patients with underlying left ventricular dysfunction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bomb et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: