OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of plaque composition on accuracy of quantitative 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA). METHODS: The institutional review board approved this study; written informed consent was obtained from all patients. One hundred consecutive patients (42 women, mean age 64.6 +/- 9.4 years, age range 39-87 years) underwent CTCA and invasive quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) to determine (a) the diagnostic accuracy of CTCA for the detection of significant stenosis (diameter reduction of > or =50%), and (b) the accuracy of stenosis grading. In CTCA stenosis severity was graded in 10% steps and evaluated separately for calcified and non-calcified coronary lesions using Pearson-linear-regression analysis, Bland/Altman-analysis (BA), and Mann-Whitney-U-test. RESULTS: In 60/100 patients 139 significant coronary artery stenoses were identified with QCA. On a per-segment analysis, sensitivity of CTCA was 75.5%, and specificity was 96.6% (positive predictive value: 72.9%, negative predictive value: 97.0%). Quantification of stenosis grading correlated moderately between methods (r = 0.60; P < 0.001), with an overestimation by CTCA of 5.5% (BA limits-of-agreement -29 to 39%). BA limits-of-agreement were greater in calcified lesions (-29.2 to 45.6%; mean error 8.2%) than in non-calcified lesions (-25.9 to 30.2%; mean error 2.2%) and differed significantly (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy of CTCA is high, however agreement for quantitative lesion severity assessment between CTCA and QCA is moderate for calcified but superior for non-calcified lesions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of plaque composition on accuracy of quantitative 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA). METHODS: The institutional review board approved this study; written informed consent was obtained from all patients. One hundred consecutive patients (42 women, mean age 64.6 +/- 9.4 years, age range 39-87 years) underwent CTCA and invasive quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) to determine (a) the diagnostic accuracy of CTCA for the detection of significant stenosis (diameter reduction of > or =50%), and (b) the accuracy of stenosis grading. In CTCA stenosis severity was graded in 10% steps and evaluated separately for calcified and non-calcified coronary lesions using Pearson-linear-regression analysis, Bland/Altman-analysis (BA), and Mann-Whitney-U-test. RESULTS: In 60/100 patients 139 significant coronary artery stenoses were identified with QCA. On a per-segment analysis, sensitivity of CTCA was 75.5%, and specificity was 96.6% (positive predictive value: 72.9%, negative predictive value: 97.0%). Quantification of stenosis grading correlated moderately between methods (r = 0.60; P < 0.001), with an overestimation by CTCA of 5.5% (BA limits-of-agreement -29 to 39%). BA limits-of-agreement were greater in calcified lesions (-29.2 to 45.6%; mean error 8.2%) than in non-calcified lesions (-25.9 to 30.2%; mean error 2.2%) and differed significantly (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy of CTCA is high, however agreement for quantitative lesion severity assessment between CTCA and QCA is moderate for calcified but superior for non-calcified lesions.
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: Francesca Pugliese; Nico R A Mollet; Giuseppe Runza; Carlos van Mieghem; Willem B Meijboom; Patrizia Malagutti; Timo Baks; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J deFeyter; Filippo Cademartiri Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephanie Busch; Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Franz von Ziegler; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-12-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Axel Kuettner; Tobias Trabold; Stephen Schroeder; Anja Feyer; Torsten Beck; Ariane Brueckner; Martin Heuschmid; Christof Burgstahler; Andreas F Kopp; Claus D Claussen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: E N Arnett; J M Isner; D R Redwood; K M Kent; W P Baker; H Ackerstein; W C Roberts Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1979-09 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael Toepker; Christopher L Schlett; Thomas Irlbeck; Amir A Mahabadi; Fabian Bamberg; Christiane Leidecker; Patrick Donnelly; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: R Malagò; A Pezzato; C Barbiani; W Mantovani; G Caliari; U Alfonsi; D Tavella; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Christoph A Karlo; Sebastian Leschka; Paul Stolzmann; Nicola Glaser-Gallion; Simon Wildermuth; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2012-05-01