p.70 抽出テキスト

Circulation. 2021;144:e368–e454. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001029 November 30, 2021 e437 CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

5.1.3 Intermediate-High Risk Patients With Stable Chest Pain and No Known CAD

1 Dewey M, Rief M, Martus P, et al. Evaluation of computed tomography in

patients with atypical angina or chest pain clinically referred for invasive coronary angiography: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2016;355:i5441. 2.	 Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:2135–2144. 3.	 Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1724–1732. 4.	 Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2324–2336. 5.	 Chang H-J, Lin FY, Gebow D, et al. Selective referral using CCTA versus direct referral for individuals referred to invasive coronary angiography for suspected CAD: a randomized, controlled, open-label trial. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2019;12:1303–1312. 6.	 Sharma A, Coles A, Sekaran NK, et al. Stress testing versus CT angiography in patients with diabetes and suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:893–902. 7.	 Min JK, Koduru S, Dunning AM, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for near-term quality of life, cost and radiation exposure: a prospective multicenter randomized pilot trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6:274–283. 8.	 Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1291–1300. 9.	 SCOT-HEART Investigators. Coronary CT angiography and 5-year risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:924–933. 10.	 SCOT-HEART Investigators. CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an openlabel, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2383–2391. 11.	 McKavanagh P, Lusk L, Ball PA, et al. A comparison of cardiac computerized tomography and exercise stress electrocardiogram test for the investigation of stable chest pain: the clinical results of the CAPP randomized prospective trial. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:441–448. 12.	 Douglas PS, Pontone G, Hlatky MA, et al. Clinical outcomes of fractional flow reserve by computed tomographic angiography-guided diagnostic strategies vs. usual care in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: the prospective longitudinal trial of FFR(CT): outcome and resource impacts study. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3359–3367. 13.	 Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/ PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2012;126:e354–e471. 14.	 Douglas PS, Garcia MJ, Haines D, et al. ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/ HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 appropriate use criteria for echocardiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57: 1126–1166. 15.	 Gurunathan S, Zacharias K, Akhtar M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a management strategy based on exercise echocardiography versus exercise electrocardiography in patients presenting with suspected angina during long term follow up: a randomized study. Int J Cardiol. 2018; 259:1–7. 16.	 Carpeggiani C, Landi P, Michelassi C, et al. Stress echocardiography positivity predicts cancer death. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e007104. 17.	 Hoffmann U, Ferencik M, Udelson JE, et al. Prognostic value of noninvasive

cardiovascular testing in patients with stable chest pain: insights from the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) Circulation. 2017;135:2320–2332. 18 Abdelmoneim SS, Ball CA, Mantovani F, et al. Prognostic utility of stress

testing and cardiac biomarkers in menopausal women at low to intermediate risk for coronary artery disease (SMART Study): 5-year outcome. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018;27:542–551. 19.	 Cortigiani L, Urluescu ML, Coltelli M, et al. Apparent declining prognostic value of a negative stress echocardiography based on regional wall motion abnormalities in patients with normal resting left ventricular function due to the changing referral profile of the population under study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:e008564. 20.	 Gibbons RJ, Hodge DO, Berman DS, et al. Long-term outcome of patients with intermediate-risk exercise electrocardiograms who do not have myocardial perfusion defects on radionuclide imaging. Circulation. 1999;100:2140–2145. 21.	 Rozanski A, Gransar H, Min JK, et al. Long-term mortality following normal exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT according to coronary disease risk factors. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:341–350. 22.	 Bourque JM, Holland BH, Watson DD, et al. Achieving an exercise workload of > or = 10 metabolic equivalents predicts a very low risk of inducible ischemia: does myocardial perfusion imaging have a role? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:538–545. 23.	 Shaw LJ, Wilson PW, Hachamovitch R, et al. Improved near-term coronary artery disease risk classification with gated stress myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2010;3:1139–1148. 24.	 Shaw LJ, Min JK, Hachamovitch R, et al. Nomograms for estimating coronary artery disease prognosis with gated stress myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:43–52. 25.	 Uretsky S, Rozanski A. Long-term outcomes following a normal stress myocardial perfusion scan. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:715–718. 26.	 Patel KK, Al Badarin F, Chan PS, et al. Randomized comparison of clinical effectiveness of pharmacologic SPECT and PET MPI in symptomatic CAD patients. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2019;12:1821–1831. 27.	 Dorbala S, Di Carli MF, Beanlands RS, et al. Prognostic value of stress myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography: results from a multicenter observational registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:176–184. 28.	 Kay J, Dorbala S, Goyal A, et al. Influence of sex on risk stratification with stress myocardial perfusion Rb-82 positron emission tomography: results from the PET (Positron Emission Tomography) Prognosis Multicenter Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1866–1876. 29.	 Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379:453–460. 30.	 Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:775–781. 31.	 Hamon M, Fau G, Nee G, et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12:29. 32.	 Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1719–1728. 33.	 Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. Superior diagnostic performance of perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus SPECT to detect coronary artery disease: the secondary endpoints of the multicenter multivendor MR- IMPACT II (Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary Artery Disease Trial) J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:61. 34.	 Greenwood JP, Ripley DP, Berry C, et al. Effect of care guided by cardiovascular magnetic resonance, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, or NICE guidelines on subsequent unnecessary angiography rates: the CE-MARC 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316:1051–1060. 35.	 Nagel E, Greenwood JP, McCann GP, et al. Magnetic resonance perfusion or fractional flow reserve in coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2418–2428. 36.	 Knuuti J, Ballo H, Juarez-Orozco LE, et al. The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3322–3330. 37.	 Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Driessen RS, et al. Comparison of coronary

CT angiography, SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging for diagnosis of ischemic heart disease determined by fractional flow reserve. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:1100–1107.

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on October 7, 2026