CT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: Arterial First-Pass Imaging

  • Florian SchwarzEmail author
  • Amadeus Altenburger
  • Michael Gebhard
  • Christian Thilo
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)


The high pace of technological innovations in cardiac CT has extended its reach to the evaluation of ischemic cardiomyopathy, enabling pharmacological stress myocardial CT perfusion imaging. This extension promises to cover one of the traditionally weaker flanks of cardiac CT: the specificity and positive predictive value in the detection of hemodynamically significant stenoses. Furthermore, diagnostic accuracy in the assessment of stent patency and severely calcified coronary trees may be increased. Future clinical studies will have to address the differences between static and dynamic acquisition protocols, as the former cannot provide fully quantitative data but come at considerably lower radiation doses.


CT myocardial perfusion imaging Arterial first-pass imaging Cardiac CT innovation Stent patency assessment Calcified coronary tree assessment Image analysis in CT myocardial perfusion imaging 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Menke J, Kowalski J. Diagnostic accuracy and utility of coronary CT angiography with consideration of unevaluable results: a systematic review and multivariate Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis with intention to diagnose. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(2):451–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    von Ballmoos MW, et al. Meta-analysis: diagnostic performance of low-radiation-dose coronary computed tomography angiography. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(6):413–20.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Samad Z, et al. A meta-analysis and systematic review of computed tomography angiography as a diagnostic triage tool for patients with chest pain presenting to the emergency department. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19(2):364–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hulten E, et al. Outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(8):880–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Di Carli MF, et al. Relationship between CT coronary angiography and stress perfusion imaging in patients with suspected ischemic heart disease assessed by integrated PET-CT imaging. J Nuclear Cardiol. 2007;14(6):799–809.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(3):177–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaw LJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117(10):1283–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gould KL, Lipscomb K, Hamilton GW. Physiologic basis for assessing critical coronary stenosis. Instantaneous flow response and regional distribution during coronary hyperemia as measures of coronary flow reserve. Am J Cardiol. 1974;33(1):87–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uren NG, et al. Relation between myocardial blood flow and the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(25):1782–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adams D, et al. Computed tomography of the normal and infarcted myocardium. Am J Roentgenol. 1976;126(4):786–91.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Powell WJ, et al. Detection of edema associated with myocardial ischemia by computerized tomography in isolated, arrested canine hearts. Circulation. 1977;55(1):99–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siemers PT, et al. Detection, quantitation and contrast enhancement of myocardial infarction utilizing computerized axial tomography: comparison with histochemical staining and 99mTc-pyrophosphate imaging. Investig Radiol. 1978;13(2):103–9.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolfkiel CJ, et al. Measurement of myocardial blood flow by ultrafast computed tomography. Circulation. 1987;76(6):1262–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rumberger JA, Feiring AJ, et al. Use of ultrafast computed tomography to quantitate regional myocardial perfusion: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;9(1):59–69.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rumberger JA, Stanford W, Marcus ML. Quantitation of regional myocardial perfusion by ultrafast CT: promises and pitfalls. Am J Card Imaging. 1987;1(4):336–43.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gould RG. Perfusion quantitation by ultrafast computed tomography. Investig Radiol. 1992;27(Suppl 2):S18–21.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bell MR, Lerman LO, Rumberger JA. Validation of minimally invasive measurement of myocardial perfusion using electron beam computed tomography and application in human volunteers. Heart. 1999;81(6):628–35.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salerno M, Beller GA. Noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(5):412–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dawson P. Cardiovascular effects of contrast agents. Am J Cardiol. 1989;64(9):2E–9E.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Canty JM, et al. First-pass entry of nonionic contrast agent into the myocardial extravascular space. Effects on radiographic estimates of transit time and blood volume. Circulation. 1991;84(5):2071–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bae KT. Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches 1. Radiology. 2010;256(1):32–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pelgrim GJ, et al. The dream of a one-stop-shop: meta-analysis on myocardial perfusion CT. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(12):2411–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caruso D, et al. Dynamic CT myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(10):1893–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cannaò PM, et al. Technical prerequisites and imaging protocols for dynamic and dual energy myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(12):2401–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bischoff B, et al. Myocardial ischemia detection with single-phase CT perfusion in symptomatic patients using high-pitch helical image acquisition technique. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33(4):569–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jin KN, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging with dual energy CT. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(10):1914–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Cecco CN, et al. White paper of the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance on dual-energy CT, part 3: vascular, cardiac, pulmonary, and musculoskeletal applications. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017;41(1):1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meinel FG, et al. First–arterial-pass dual-energy CT for assessment of myocardial blood supply: do we need rest, stress, and delayed acquisition? Comparison with SPECT. Radiology. 2014;270(3):708–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arnoldi E, et al. CT detection of myocardial blood volume deficits: dual-energy CT compared with single-energy CT spectra. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5(6):421–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koonce JD, et al. Accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography for the measurement of iodine concentration using cardiac CT protocols: validation in a phantom model. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(2):512–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Steveson C, et al. The effect of heart rate on exposure window and best phase for stress perfusion computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017;41(2):242–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taillefer R, et al. Acute beta-blockade reduces the extent and severity of myocardial perfusion defects with dipyridamole Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(8):1475–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    George RT, et al. Adenosine stress 64- and 256-row detector computed tomography angiography and perfusion imaging: a pilot study evaluating the transmural extent of perfusion abnormalities to predict atherosclerosis causing myocardial ischemia. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(3):174–82.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Techasith T, Cury RC. Stress myocardial CT perfusion: an update and future perspective. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(8):905–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seitun S, et al. Stress computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging: a new topic in cardiology. Rev Esp Cardiol (English Edition). 2016;69(2):188–200.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bischoff B, et al. Optimal timing for first-pass stress CT myocardial perfusion imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29(2):435–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tanabe Y, et al. Optimal scan time for single-phase myocardial computed tomography perfusion to detect myocardial ischemia–derivation cohort from dynamic myocardial computed tomography perfusion. Circ J. 2016;80(12):2506–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pelgrim GJ, et al. Optimal timing of image acquisition for arterial first pass CT myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2017;86:227–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ghoshhajra BB, et al. A comparison of reconstruction and viewing parameters on image quality and accuracy of stress myocardial CT perfusion. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5(6):459–66.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kitagawa K, et al. Characterization and correction of beam-hardening artifacts during dynamic volume CT assessment of myocardial perfusion. Radiology. 2010;256(1):111–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bucher AM, et al. Quantitative evaluation of beam-hardening artefact correction in dual-energy CT myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(9):3215–22.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mehra VC, Valdiviezo C, et al. A stepwise approach to the visual interpretation of CT-based myocardial perfusion. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5(6):357–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Raff GL, et al. SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3(2):122–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Keijer JT, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of regional myocardial perfusion in patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease: quantitative comparison with (201)Thallium-SPECT and coronary angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;11(6):607–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mehra VC, Ambrose M, et al. CT-based myocardial perfusion imaging-practical considerations: acquisition, image analysis, interpretation, and challenges. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2011;4(4):437–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kitagawa K, et al. Prospective ECG-gated 320 row detector computed tomography: implications for CT angiography and perfusion imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25(2):201.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Palmas W, et al. Incremental prognostic value of exercise thallium-201 myocardial single-photon emission computed tomography late after coronary artery bypass surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25(2):403–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bettencourt N, et al. Incremental value of an integrated adenosine stress-rest MDCT perfusion protocol for detection of obstructive coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5(6):392–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wong DTL, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of combined assessment using adenosine stress computed tomography perfusion + computed tomography angiography with transluminal attenuation gradient + computed tomography angiography against invasive fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(18):1904–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yang DH, et al. Stress myocardial perfusion CT in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease: visual and quantitative analysis-validation by using fractional flow reserve. Radiology. 2015;276(3):715–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gonzalez JA, et al. Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography, computed tomography perfusion, and computed tomography-fractional flow reserve in functional myocardial ischemia assessment versus invasive fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116(9):1469–78.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    George RT, et al. Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-MDCT: the CT angiography and perfusion methods of the CORE320 multicenter multinational diagnostic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(4):829–37.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    George RT, et al. Myocardial CT perfusion imaging and SPECT for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a head-to-head comparison from the CORE320 multicenter diagnostic performance study. Radiology. 2014;272(2):407–16.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Magalhães TA, et al. Combined coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion by computed tomography in the identification of flow-limiting stenosis – the CORE320 study: an integrated analysis of CT coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(5):438–45.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rochitte CE, et al. Computed tomography angiography and perfusion to assess coronary artery stenosis causing perfusion defects by single photon emission computed tomography: the CORE320 study. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(17):1120–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cury RC, et al. A randomized, multicenter, multivendor study of myocardial perfusion imaging with regadenoson CT perfusion vs single photon emission CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(2):103–12–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cury RC, et al. Regadenoson-stress myocardial CT perfusion and single-photon emission CT: rationale, design, and acquisition methods of a prospective, multicenter, multivendor comparison. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2014;8(1):2–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nakamori S, et al. Feasibility of stress-alone cardiac CT for detecting hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis in the presence of high coronary calcium score and coronary stents. Cardiovasc Imaging Asia. 2017;1(1):38–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Schwarz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amadeus Altenburger
    • 1
  • Michael Gebhard
    • 1
  • Christian Thilo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and NeuroradiologyKlinikum AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyKlinikum Augsburg, Herzzentrum Augsburg-SchwabenAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations