English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Both anatomy- and physiology-based approaches to patient management have advantages and limitations. Compared with the latter, the former has a superior ability to exclude disease and does not miss high-risk coronary artery disease (CAD). However, it is limited by a possibility of overestimating the severity of CAD and of potentially failing to determine which posttest therapeutic approach optimizes treatment benefit. On the other hand, although a physiology-based approach could potentially identify optimal therapeutic strategies, the possibility of both false-positive and false-negative findings is a concern. This review incorporates some of the more recent advances in CT coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), including PET MPI, into a discussion of anatomic versus physiologic imaging and provides our perspective on how an anatomy-based testing strategy centered in CT coronary angiography versus a physiology-based testing strategy with MPI may be clinically used for the evaluation of known or suspected CAD in symptomatic patients.

Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Versus CT Coronary Angiography: When to Use Which?