Bacground: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represents the gold standard in noninvasive evaluation of myocardial tissue. However, some patients are unable to undergo cardiac MRI due to a variety of reasons. AIMS: We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of routinely performed contrast‐enhanced computed tomography (CECT) compared with cardiac MRI in the evaluation of myocardial tissue. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 96 consecutive patients (mean [SD] age, 51 [15] years; 41 women) who underwent both CECT and cardiac MRI within 30 days. All CECT scans that visualized the entire heart were analyzed, regardless of the indication for and protocol of the procedure. The presence of late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac MRI was compared with the finding of myocardial hypoattenuation on computed tomography scans. RESULTS: With cardiac MRI as the gold standard, CECT revealed a per‐patient sensitivity of 66%, specificity of 89%, positive predictive value of 75%, negative predictive value of 84%, and accuracy of 81%. Per‐segment sensitivity was 54%; specificity, 98%; positive predictive value, 76%; negative predictive value, 94%; and accuracy, 92%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that routinely performed CECT has high specificity, but only moderate sensitivity, compared with cardiac MRI in the evaluation of myocardial tissue. This result supports the recommendation that all CECT scans that visualize the entire heart should be analyzed for myocardial tissue pathology.

2nd Department of Medicine Department of Cardiovascular Medicine 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague and General University Hospital Prague Prague Czech Republic

Department of Medicine University Hospital Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Newark New Jersey United States

Department of Radiology 1stFaculty of Medicine Charles Universityin Prague and General University Hospital Prague Prague Czech Republic

References provided by Crossref.org