OBJECTIVE: To prospectively investigate the diagnostic accuracy of dual-source 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA), calcium scoring (CS) and both methods combined for assessing significant coronary artery stenoses relative to conventional coronary angiography (CCA). DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Prospective, single-centre study conducted in a referral centre enrolling 74 consecutive patients (24 women; mean age 62 (SD 12) years) from August-October 2006. All study participants underwent CS, CTCA and CCA. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for CS, CTCA and both methods combined relative to CCA. Not-evaluative segments at computed tomography were considered false positive. RESULTS: CCA identified 139 stenoses in 36 patients. Average heart rate during CTCA was 68 (13) bpm (range 35-102 bpm), and 2% of segments (21/1001) in 11% of patients (8/74) were not evaluative. Considering these as false positives, per-patient sensitivity and specificity was 98% and 87%. When using CS cut-off values of 0 to exclude and >or=400 to predict stenosis, sensitivity and specificity of CS was 100% and 70%, respectively. Combining CS and CTCA in all patients correctly reclassified five patients, while six were falsely classified as stenotic, all of them correctly classified with CTCA alone. Using CS only in patients with not-evaluative segments correctly reclassified five patients while avoiding misclassifications (sensitivity 98%, specificity 100%). CONCLUSION: Dual-source CTCA allows the diagnosis of significant stenoses with a high diagnostic accuracy. Selectively combining CS with CTCA in patients with not-evaluative coronary segments improves specificity from 87% to 100% without decreasing the high sensitivity of 98%.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively investigate the diagnostic accuracy of dual-source 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA), calcium scoring (CS) and both methods combined for assessing significant coronary artery stenoses relative to conventional coronary angiography (CCA). DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Prospective, single-centre study conducted in a referral centre enrolling 74 consecutive patients (24 women; mean age 62 (SD 12) years) from August-October 2006. All study participants underwent CS, CTCA and CCA. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for CS, CTCA and both methods combined relative to CCA. Not-evaluative segments at computed tomography were considered false positive. RESULTS:CCA identified 139 stenoses in 36 patients. Average heart rate during CTCA was 68 (13) bpm (range 35-102 bpm), and 2% of segments (21/1001) in 11% of patients (8/74) were not evaluative. Considering these as false positives, per-patient sensitivity and specificity was 98% and 87%. When using CS cut-off values of 0 to exclude and >or=400 to predict stenosis, sensitivity and specificity of CS was 100% and 70%, respectively. Combining CS and CTCA in all patients correctly reclassified five patients, while six were falsely classified as stenotic, all of them correctly classified with CTCA alone. Using CS only in patients with not-evaluative segments correctly reclassified five patients while avoiding misclassifications (sensitivity 98%, specificity 100%). CONCLUSION: Dual-source CTCA allows the diagnosis of significant stenoses with a high diagnostic accuracy. Selectively combining CS with CTCA in patients with not-evaluative coronary segments improves specificity from 87% to 100% without decreasing the high sensitivity of 98%.
Authors: Matthijs Oudkerk; Arthur E Stillman; Sandra S Halliburton; Willi A Kalender; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Cynthia H McCollough; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Leslee J Shaw; William Stanford; Allen J Taylor; Peter M A van Ooijen; Lewis Wexler; Paolo Raggi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tobias A Fuchs; Julia Stehli; Svetlana Dougoud; Bert-Ram Sah; Sacha Bull; Olivier F Clerc; Mathias Possner; Ronny R Buechel; Oliver Gaemperli; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jack W Lambert; Yuxin Sun; Karen G Ordovas; Robert G Gould; Sizhe Wang; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Anoeshka S Dharampal; Alexia Rossi; Admir Dedic; Filippo Cademartiri; Stella L Papadopoulou; Annick C Weustink; Bart S Ferket; Eric Boersma; Willem B Meijboom; Tjebbe W Galema; Koen Nieman; Pim J de Feyter; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ullrich Ebersberger; Dov Eilot; Roman Goldenberg; Alon Lev; J Reid Spears; Garrett W Rowe; Nicholas Y Gallagher; William T Halligan; Philipp Blanke; Marcus R Makowski; Aleksander W Krazinski; Justin R Silverman; Fabian Bamberg; Alexander W Leber; Ellen Hoffmann; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthijs Oudkerk; Arthur E Stillman; Sandra S Halliburton; Willi A Kalender; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Cynthia H McCollough; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Leslee J Shaw; William Stanford; Allen J Taylor; Peter M A van Ooijen; Lewis Wexler; Paolo Raggi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 2.357