Diagnostic Accuracy Of Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography Research Articles

Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography in Patients Presenting with Heart Failure of Unknown Etiology in the Middle East.

Objectives:The purpose of this study is to assess the diagnostic performance of coronary artery calcium score (CACS), computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA), and the prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) as etiology of heart failure (HF) in the Middle Eastern population.Background:CTCA has several advantages compared to invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, studies on the diagnostic accuracy of CTCA and CACS in detecting the prevalence of CAD in patients with newly diagnosed HF are lacking in the Middle East.Methods:This study included 204 patients with symptoms of HF and ejection fraction (EF) of <50% by echocardiography who underwent CTCA for diagnosis of CAD within 3 months. The exclusion criteria were defined as patients with a history of CAD, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass grafting. All patients with obstructive CAD based on CTCA were referred for ICA. In addition, 30 patients with normal CTCA also underwent ICA for verification.Results:The mean age was 48 ± 13 years, 69% (n = 141) were male and 31% (n = 73) were female, mean left ventricular EF was 31% ± 9%, and mean CACS was 58 ± 120. Based on the CTCA results, 169 patients had normal or nonobstructive CAD, whereas 35 patients had obstructive CAD. ICA was performed in all 35 patients with obstructive CAD; 30 of them were confirmed as having abnormal ICA, and only 5 had nonobstructive CAD. In addition, 30 patients with normal CTCA underwent ICA testing and were confirmed as having normal ICA. The CTCA had 100% sensitivity, 84% specificity, 86% positive predictive value, and 100% negative predictive value. Of the total population, 30 (15%) who were documented as having obstructive CAD were classified as CAD HF based on ICA. The remaining 174 (85%) patients were classified as having no CAD HF based on normal CTCA and/or ICA. The prevalence of CAD HF based on ICA was 15%. There was a strong correlation between CACS and both CTCA and ICA, with P = 0.001 and 0.0048, respectively.Conclusion:In patients with newly diagnosed HF, CACS and CTCA had a 100% sensitivity and negative value as well as overall excellent diagnostic accuracy. CACS = 0 excluded CAD as the etiology of HF with correlation between CACS groups and both CTCA and ICA. The prevalence of CAD as etiology of HF in the study population was 15%.

CTCA for detection of significant coronary artery disease in routine TAVI work-up : Asystematic review and meta-analysis.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved to standard treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients with an intermediate to high surgical risk. Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) could partially replace invasive coronary angiography to diagnose significant coronary artery disease in the work-up for TAVI. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE for papers comparing CTCA and coronary angiography in TAVI candidates. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of CTCA, compared to coronary angiography, for detection of significant (>50% diameter stenosis) coronary artery disease, measured as sensitivity, specificity, positive—(PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Seven studies were included, with a cumulative sample size of 1,275 patients. The patient-based pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 95, 65, 71 and 94% respectively. Quality assessment revealed excellent and good quality in terms of applicability and risk of bias respectively, with the main concern being patient selection. In conclusion, on the basis of a significance cut-off value of 50% diameter stenosis, CTCA provides acceptable diagnostic accuracy for the exclusion of coronary artery disease in patients referred for TAVI. Using the routinely performed preoperative computed tomography scans as a gatekeeper for coronary angiography could decrease additional coronary angiographies by 37% in this high-risk and fragile population.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-018-1149-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The impact of training on diagnostic accuracy with computed tomography coronary angiography

The aim of this study is to assess the image quality and diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography (CTCA) in different hospital settings with the same trained team. Four hundred patients were consecutively enrolled for CTCA in a large academic hospital (Group 1; Sensation 64 Cardiac, Siemens - Iomeprol 400, Bracco; 200 patients) and in a small local hospital (Group 2; VCT, GE Healthcare - Iodixanol 320, GE Healthcare; 200 patients). All patients were enrolled for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and patients with stents or who had previously undergone coronary bypass were excluded. Scan protocols (retrospectively ECG-gated; no dose reduction modulation applied) were performed in accordance with standards reported in the international literature with the best solution available on site. Image quality was assessed in each coronary segment with a 4-point Likert scale: 0, not assessable; 1, low; 2, average; 3, good. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated against conventional coronary angiography with a threshold of at least 50% for significant stenosis. There was no significant difference between demographics, BMI, prevalence of obstructive CAD, calcium score and heart rate between the two populations. The average image quality was 2.83 ± 0.37 for Group 1 and 2.86 ± 0.31 for Group 2 (P > 0.05). Per-segment sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 92.6% (87-95), 97.9% (97-98), 75.9% (69-81) and 99.5% (99-99), respectively, for Group 1, and 90.4% (85-93), 98.6% (98-99), 84.2% (78-88) and 99.2% (98-99), respectively, for Group 2 (P > 0.05). There is no significant difference in image quality and diagnostic accuracy of CTCA when the investigation is performed by the same properly trained team. CTCA is a robust imaging modality for the detection of coronary artery stenosis.

Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Utility of Noninvasive Testing for Coronary Artery Disease

In this observational study, the authors aimed to define the clinical utility of stress testing vs. computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in determining the need for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Although the diagnostic accuracy of CTCA has repeatedly been shown to supercede that of stress testing, the question of which patients need CTCA has not been definitively shown. In this study, 517 patients referred by their treating physicians received both stress testing and CTCA. CTCA was the most clinically useful in populations with intermediate (defined as 20–80%) pretest probability.

Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in a large population of patients without revascularisation: registry data and review of multicentre trials

This study was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography (CT-CA) for the detection of significant coronary artery stenosis (> or =50% lumen reduction) compared with conventional coronary angiography (CCA) in a registry and to review major multicentre trials. A total of 1,372 patients (882 men, 490 women; mean age 59.3+/-11.9 years) in sinus rhythm were studied with CT-CA (64-slice technology) and CCA. The diagnostic accuracy of CT-CA was evaluated against quantitative CCA as a reference standard for coronary artery stenosis. Positive and negative likelihood ratios and inter- and intraobserver agreement were calculated. The prevalence of disease was 53%. CCA demonstrated the absence of significant coronary artery disease in 46.6% (639/1372), single-vessel disease in 24.7% (337/1372) and multivessel disease in 28.9% (396/1372) of patients. In per-patient analysis sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value of CT-CA were 99% [confidence interval (CI) 97-99], 92% (CI 89-94), 94% (CI 91-95) and 99% (CI 97-99), respectively. Per-patient and per-segment likelihood ratios (LR+=12.4 and LR-=0.011; LR+=18.3 and LR-=0.064, respectively), were good. Inter- and intraobserver variability was 0.78 and 0.85, respectively. CT-CA is a reliable diagnostic modality both in terms of sensitivity and negative predictive value. Differences in trial results are also due to the different parameters used for patient inclusion.

Stress-ECG vs. CT coronary angiography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a “real-world” experience

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of stress electrocardiogram (ECG) and computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for the detection of significant coronary artery stenosis (> or =50%) in the real world using conventional CA as the reference standard. A total of 236 consecutive patients (159 men, 77 women; mean age 62.8+/-10.2 years) at moderate risk and with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) were enrolled in the study and underwent stress ECG, CTCA and CA. The CTCA scan was performed after i.v. administration of a 100-ml bolus of iodinated contrast material. The stress ECG and CTCA reports were used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy compared with CA in the detection of significant stenosis > or =50%. We excluded 16 patients from the analysis because of the nondiagnostic quality of stress ECG and/or CTCA. The prevalence of disease demonstrated at CA was 62% (n=220), 51% in the population with comparable stress ECG and CTCA (n=147) and 84% in the population with equivocal stress ECG (n=73). Stress ECG was classified as equivocal in 73 cases (33.2%), positive in 69 (31.4%) and negative in 78 (35.5%). In the per-patient analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of stress ECG was sensitivity 47%, specificity 53%, positive predictive value (PPV) 51% and negative predictive value (NPV) 49%. On stress ECG, 40 (27.2%) patients were misclassified as negative, and 34 (23.1%) patients with nonsignificant stenosis were overestimated as positive. The diagnostic accuracy of CTCA was sensitivity 96%, specificity 65%, PPV 74% and NPV 94%. CTCA incorrectly classified three (2%) as negative and 25 (17%) as positive. The difference in diagnostic accuracy between stress ECG and CTCA was significant (p<0.01). CTCA in the real world has significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared with stress ECG and could be used as a first-line study in patients at moderate risk.

New Technology for Noninvasive Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease

Cardiac computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) are emerging as powerful noninvasive imaging tools for the evaluation of atherosclerosis in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Unlike invasive coronary angiography, CT coronary angiography (CTA) not only assesses disease within the coronary lumen but can also provide direct qualitative and quantitative information about nonobstructive atherosclerotic plaque burden within the vessel wall. Thus, it is possible that CTA-based patient evaluation may provide more clinically relevant information on which to base risk assessments compared with conventional “lumenography.” On the other hand, PET is rapidly growing as a powerful and efficient alternative to conventional single-photon emission CT (SPECT) imaging to evaluate regional myocardial perfusion and metabolism in patients with CAD. In addition, PET scanners are now being converted to hybrid PET/CT devices, which, in the setting of CAD, offer the potential for a comprehensive noninvasive cardiac evaluation of anatomy and function. This review will discuss current and potential future applications of cardiovascular CT, PET, and hybrid PET/CT, with a particular focus on ischemic heart disease. The information provided by noninvasive imaging generally falls into 1 of 3 categories: myocardial perfusion, left ventricular (LV) function, or coronary artery anatomy. The clinical utility, value, and role of a noninvasive modality are based on 2 test characteristics: What type of information is provided (eg, stress perfusion, stress and/or rest LV function, coronary anatomy), and what is the accuracy of the information provided. For example, SPECT and PET both provide stress and rest perfusion information, but the latter will be a superior clinical tool if the imaging data better represent the actual defect size and are subject to less artifact. The advantage of PET over SPECT will be further enhanced, as will be discussed later, if it provides additional clinically relevant information not …