Technology Comparison Analysis
Test Conventional Angiogram
Occlusive CAD Diagnostic Accuracy
Equipment Cost
Risk
Time
98%
Highest
High
8 hrs
CARDx ECD (12‐lead CCG)
90~94%
Medium Low
None
10 min
64-Slice CCTA
Sensitivity 91~99% Specificity 64~91%
High
Moderate
60 min
Stress Thallium SPECT
S i i i 8 % Sensitivity 80~90% Specificity 70~75%
High
Stress Echo‐ cardiogram
80% (27% false positive if hypertensive)
Medium
Moderate
Echo‐ cardiogram
75%
Medium Low
None
Stress ECG
50~70%
Low
Moderate
ECG
40~50%
Lowest
None
Moderate
4 hrs
Advantages Clinical standard for CAD
Limitations Invasive, expensive, high risk, and time consuming
The only accurate, fast, and non‐ invasive technology for early detection of Only available for 3D localization of the approximate ischemic area(s) of CAD, ischemia, microvascular involved coronary arteries dysfunction, & differentiating heart dsyfunctions High calcium score A useful way of screening for CAD Motion artifact Allergic reaction due to IV contrast Safer and faster than conventional injection angiogram Kidney diseases or severe diabetes M j i ffraction i Most accurate ffor ejection
Some risk with exercise Requires IV radio‐isotope injection Expensive
Best for ischemia detection Evaluates wall motion & heart under Only 80% accurate stress 30~40 min Risk of AMI (technically Non‐invasive demanding) Good for measuring valvular ejection Must be ischemic to show abnormalities fraction and left ventricular function Best for valvular, congenital, and wall Only 75% accurate for CAD, good motion 15 min images cannot be obtained in 5~15% of Non‐invasive patients No risks Detects perfusion deficit Not recommended if abnormal EKG 30~40 min Only 42% accurate on women; 33% Non‐invasive false positives, 25% false negatives Low accuracy, not always specific, Inexpensive insensitive to ischemia No risk Not always specific 10 min Fast Insensitive to ischemia Non-invasive www.bionetek.com