PURPOSE: This study was done to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for the detection of significant coronary artery stenosis in the real clinical world. MATERIALS AND METHOD: From the CTCA database of our institution, we enrolled 145 patients (92 men, 52 women, mean age 63.4 +/- 10.2 years) with suspected coronary artery disease. All patients presented with atypical or typical chest pain and underwent CTCA and conventional coronary angiography (CA). For the CTCA scan (Sensation 64, Siemens, Germany), we administered an IV bolus of 100 ml of iodinated contrast material (Iomeprol 400 mgI/ml, Bracco, Italy). The CTCA and CA reports used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy adopted > or =50% and > or =70%, respectively, as thresholds for significant stenosis. RESULT: Eleven patients were excluded from the analysis because of the nondiagnostic quality of CTCA. The prevalence of disease demonstrated at CA was 63% (84/134). Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for CTCA on a per-segment, per-vessel, and per-patient basis were 75.6%, 85.1%, 97.6%; 86.9%, 81.8%, 58.0%; 48.2%, 68.1%, 79.6%; and 95.7%, 92.3%, 93.5%, respectively. Only two out of 134 eligible patients were false negative. Heart rate did not significantly influence diagnostic accuracy, whereas the absence or minimal presence of coronary calcification improved diagnostic accuracy. The positive and negative likelihood ratios at the per-patient level were 2.32 and 0.041, respectively. CONCLUSION: CTCA in the real clinical world shows a diagnostic performance lower than reported in previous validation studies. The excellent negative predictive value and negative likelihood ratio make CTCA a noninvasive gold standard for exclusion of significant coronary artery disease.
PURPOSE: This study was done to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for the detection of significant coronary artery stenosis in the real clinical world. MATERIALS AND METHOD: From the CTCA database of our institution, we enrolled 145 patients (92 men, 52 women, mean age 63.4 +/- 10.2 years) with suspected coronary artery disease. All patients presented with atypical or typical chest pain and underwent CTCA and conventional coronary angiography (CA). For the CTCA scan (Sensation 64, Siemens, Germany), we administered an IV bolus of 100 ml of iodinated contrast material (Iomeprol 400 mgI/ml, Bracco, Italy). The CTCA and CA reports used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy adopted > or =50% and > or =70%, respectively, as thresholds for significant stenosis. RESULT: Eleven patients were excluded from the analysis because of the nondiagnostic quality of CTCA. The prevalence of disease demonstrated at CA was 63% (84/134). Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for CTCA on a per-segment, per-vessel, and per-patient basis were 75.6%, 85.1%, 97.6%; 86.9%, 81.8%, 58.0%; 48.2%, 68.1%, 79.6%; and 95.7%, 92.3%, 93.5%, respectively. Only two out of 134 eligible patients were false negative. Heart rate did not significantly influence diagnostic accuracy, whereas the absence or minimal presence of coronary calcification improved diagnostic accuracy. The positive and negative likelihood ratios at the per-patient level were 2.32 and 0.041, respectively. CONCLUSION: CTCA in the real clinical world shows a diagnostic performance lower than reported in previous validation studies. The excellent negative predictive value and negative likelihood ratio make CTCA a noninvasive gold standard for exclusion of significant coronary artery disease.
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Giacomo Luccichenti; Riccardo Marano; Koen Nieman; Nico Mollet; Pim J de Feyter; Gabriel P Krestin; Paolo Pavone; Lorenzo Bonomo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Nico R Mollet; Pedro A Lemos; Franceso Saia; Giuseppe Runza; Massimo Midiri; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Giuseppe Runza; Manuel Belgrano; Giacomo Luccichenti; Nico R Mollet; Patrizia Malagutti; Marco Silvestrini; Massimo Midiri; Maria Cova; Roberto Pozzi Mucelli; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.469
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
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Dieter Ropers; Axel Kuettner; Thomas Flohr; Bernd Ohnesorge; Herbert Bruder; Heike Theessen; Meri Karakaya; Werner G Daniel; Werner Bautz; Willi A Kalender; Katharina Anders Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Joanne D Schuijf; Gabija Pundziute; J Wouter Jukema; Hildo J Lamb; Bas L van der Hoeven; Albert de Roos; Ernst E van der Wall; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-05-19 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Dieter Ropers; Falk-Karsten Pohle; Dorette Raaz; Johannes von Erffa; Attila Yilmaz; Gerd Muschiol; Werner G Daniel Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-05-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Dieter Ropers; Ulrich Baum; Karsten Pohle; Katharina Anders; Stefan Ulzheimer; Bernd Ohnesorge; Christian Schlundt; Werner Bautz; Werner G Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M Fusaro; N Faccioli; E Calderon; F Santini; A Palumbo; G Morana; F Cademartiri; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: L La Grutta; M Galia; G Gentile; G Lo Re; E Grassedonio; F Coppolino; E Maffei; E Maresi; A Lo Casto; F Cademartiri; M Midiri Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: E Maffei; C Martini; C Tedeschi; P Spagnolo; A Zuccarelli; T Arcadi; A Guaricci; S Seitun; A Weustink; N Mollet; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-06-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; C Martini; C Tedeschi; P Spagnolo; A Zuccarelli; T Arcadi; A Guaricci; S Seitun; A C Weustink; N R Mollet; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-06-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: C N De Cecco; V Buffa; S Fedeli; A Vallone; R Ruopoli; M Luzietti; V Miele; M Maurizi Enrici; F Musumeci; V David Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; A Palumbo; C Martini; A Cuttone; F Ugo; E Emiliano; A Menozzi; L Vignali; V Brambilla; P Coruzzi; A Weustink; N Mollet; D Ardissino; C Reverberi; G Crisi; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: R Malagò; A Pezzato; C Barbiani; U Alfonsi; M D'Onofrio; D Tavella; P Benussi; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 3.469