Literature DB >> 16037533

Chest pain evaluation in the emergency department: can MDCT provide a comprehensive evaluation?

Charles S White1, Dick Kuo, Mark Kelemen, Vineet Jain, Amy Musk, Eram Zaidi, Katrina Read, Clint Sliker, Rajnish Prasad.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine whether MDCT can provide a comprehensive assessment of cardiac and noncardiac causes of chest pain in stable emergency department patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with chest pain who presented to the emergency department without definitive findings of acute myocardial infarction based on history, physical examination, and ECG were recruited immediately after the initial clinical assessment. For each patient, the emergency department physician was asked whether a CT scan would normally have been ordered on clinical grounds (e.g., to exclude pulmonary embolism). Each consenting patient underwent enhanced ECG-gated 16-MDCT. Ten cardiac phases were reconstructed. The images were evaluated for cardiac (coronary calcium and stenosis, ejection fraction, and wall motion and perfusion) and significant noncardiac (pulmonary embolism, dissection, pneumonia, and so forth) causes of chest pain. Correlation was made between the presence of significant cardiac and noncardiac findings on CT and the final clinical diagnosis based on history, examination, and any subsequent cardiac workup at the 1-month follow-up by a consensus of three physicians.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients met all criteria for enrollment in the study, of whom 45 (65%) would not otherwise have undergone CT. Fifty-two patients (75%) had no significant CT findings and a final diagnosis of clinically insignificant chest pain. Thirteen patients (19%) had significant CT findings (cardiac, 10; noncardiac, 3) concordant with the final diagnosis. CT failed to suggest a diagnosis in two patients (3%), both of whom proved to have clinically significant coronary artery stenoses. In two patients (3%), CT overdiagnosed a coronary stenosis. Sensitivity and specificity for the establishment of a cardiac cause of chest pain were 83% and 96%, respectively. Overall sensitivity and specificity for all other cardiac and noncardiac causes were 87% and 96%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: ECG-gated MDCT appears to be logistically feasible and shows promise as a comprehensive method for evaluating cardiac and noncardiac chest pain in stable emergency department patients. Further hardware and software improvements will be necessary for adoption of this paradigm in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16037533     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.185.2.01850533

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  43 in total

1.  The potential role for the use of cardiac computed tomography angiography for the acute chest pain patient in the emergency department.

Authors:  Sean R Wilson; James K Min
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  The potential role for the use of cardiac computed tomography angiography for the acute chest pain patient in the emergency department: a cautionary viewpoint.

Authors:  Robert Hendel; Naim Dahdah
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Acute coronary syndrome: evaluation of detection capability using non-electrocardiogram-gated parenchymal phase CT imaging.

Authors:  Motohiko Yamazaki; Takeshi Higuchi; Toshikazu Shimokoshi; Takao Kiguchi; Yosuke Horii; Norihiko Yoshimura; Hidefumi Aoyama
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 2.374

4.  Dual-source CT cardiac imaging: initial experience.

Authors:  Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Bernd J Wintersperger; Alexander W Leber; Franz von Ziegler; Carsten Rist; Sonja Buhmann; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-13       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Cardiac imaging in the evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain.

Authors:  Jared J Wyrick; Kevin Wei
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Coronary artery imaging during preoperative CT staging: preliminary experience with 64-slice multidetector CT in 99 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Damien Delhaye; Martine Remy-Jardin; Céline Rozel; Catherine Dusson; Alain Wurtz; Valérie Delannoy-Deken; Alain Duhamel; Jacques Remy
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-10-24       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Comprehensive cardiac CT study: evaluation of coronary arteries, left ventricular function, and myocardial perfusion--is it possible?

Authors:  Ricardo C Cury; Koen Nieman; Michael D Shapiro; Khurram Nasir; Roberto C Cury; Thomas J Brady
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 8.  New methods for improved evaluation of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department.

Authors:  U Ekelund; J L Forberg
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 9.  Is the lung scan alive and well? Facts and controversies in defining the role of lung scintigraphy for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the era of MDCT.

Authors:  John H Reid; Emmanuel E Coche; Tomio Inoue; Edmund E Kim; Maurizio Dondi; Naoyuki Watanabe; Giuliano Mariani
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 10.  Coronary CT angiography in emergency department patients with acute chest pain: triple rule-out protocol versus dedicated coronary CT angiography.

Authors:  Hwa Yeon Lee; Seung Min Yoo; Charles S White
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-10-14       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.