Abstract

BackgroundConventional coronary angiography (CAG) is currently the gold standard technique for the assessment of coronary arteries prior to cardiac valve surgery. Although CAG is a relatively safe procedure, however, it is still an invasive procedure, and it has potential hazards and complications. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a non-invasive technique that has emerged robustly as an excellent and attractive tool for delineating coronary anatomy. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of CCTA when compared with the gold standard CAG in the evaluation of coronary arteries before valve surgery. We screened 111 consecutive patients with VHD undergoing a routine cardiac catheterization for preoperative evaluation of CAD. Fifty patients were eligible and underwent both CAG and CCTA. Significant coronary stenosis was defined as a luminal diameter decrease of ≥ 50%. Additionally, ectasia, calcifications, and congenital coronary anomalies were analyzed. Also, we compared both techniques regarding radiation dose, contrast volume, and complications. Non-evaluable segments were excluded from all levels of analysis. Sixty-one patients were excluded from the study due to various reasons.ResultsAmong the 50 patients of the study population, 27 (54%) were males. The prevalence of significant CAD in the study population was 19.6% according to the patient-based analysis, and CAG could have been avoided in 80.4% of patients with a true-negative CCTA result. Diagnostic accuracy of CCTA for detection of significant stenosis was evaluated regarding sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of CCTA, which was 87.5%, 99.6%,87.5%, 99.6%, and 99.2%, respectively, for segmental-based analysis; 86%, 100%, 100%, 99%, and 99%, respectively, for vessel-based analysis; and 77.8%,100%,100%, 94.9%, and 95.7%, respectively, for patient-based analysis. Fewer rates of complications were encountered with CCTA. Additional information obtained like calcifications and congenital anomalies was diagnosed better with CCTA than CAG.ConclusionOwing mainly to its high negative predictive value, a well-performed CCTA exam is an excellent method to rule out coronary artery disease, specially in patients who are not at high risk of atherosclerosis.

Highlights

  • Conventional coronary angiography (CAG) is currently the gold standard technique for the assessment of coronary arteries prior to cardiac valve surgery

  • The average contrast volume of Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) was 85.4 ± 6.1 ml, which was lower compared with 95.4 ± 31.7 ml at CAG

  • The average total radiation dose for CCTA was 1115 ± 496.5 mGy, which was comparable to 1112.7 ± 413.9 mGy at CAG

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Conventional coronary angiography (CAG) is currently the gold standard technique for the assessment of coronary arteries prior to cardiac valve surgery. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a non-invasive technique that has emerged robustly as an excellent and attractive tool for delineating coronary anatomy. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of CCTA when compared with the gold standard CAG in the evaluation of coronary arteries before valve surgery. Coronary angiography is a relatively safe procedure, it is still an invasive procedure and has potential hazards, specially in patients with CAD and comorbidities [3]. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography when compared with the gold standard coronary angiography in the evaluation of coronary arteries before valve surgery

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call