Comments on: Meta-analysis: Noninvasive Coronary Angiography Using Computed Tomography Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging

By: Ronen Rubinshtein, MD

Ronen Rubinshtein, MD — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:56:33 +0000

May I also remind the readers that the interpretation of coronary CTA requires visual assessment and is a matter for well trained personnel!
Beyond “evidence based” data. I personally believe that currently, the accuracy of coronary CTA still depends heavily on the “human factor” (and center volume and case mix), and not only on the number of detectors. This “factor” cannot be fully accounted for in CTA imaging meta-analysis papers, but should only encourage us to improve as readers and collaborate with other institutions to learn and teach new techniques and protocols.

By: Jacobo Kirsch, MD

Jacobo Kirsch, MD — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:36:53 +0000

This meta-analysis reviewed data obtained from just over 8500 patients!
Important data from this paper (not included in the abstract) is that newer CT scanners are more sensitive than older scanners, and involve less iodinated contrast agent, but higher radiation doses.

By: Paul Schoenhagen, MD

Paul Schoenhagen, MD — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:24:58 +0000

This meta-analysis summarizes the experience with CT and MRI for coronary imaging.
For more comments check story on http://www.theheart.org