OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to assess the diagnostic performance of thin-slice (< or = 0.625 mm) MDCT coronary angiography compared with invasive coronary angiography for the detection of significant (> or = 50%) stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two articles on 40- and 64-MDCT coronary angiography were included. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated on a per-patient and per-segment basis; in addition, proximal versus distal segments were evaluated. The effect of nonevaluable patients, nonevaluable segments, and disease prevalence on diagnostic performance was assessed. RESULTS: Pooled sensitivity on a patient level was 97.7% ([95% CI] 96.2-98.7%) and specificity 91.0% (88.5-93.1%). Pooled sensitivity on a segmental level was 90.8% (89.0-92.4%) and specificity 95.7% (95.2-96.1%); for proximal segments, respectively, 94.2% (92.3-95.7%) and 94.1% (93.4-94.8%), and for distal segments 84.8% (81.1-88.0%) and 96.9% (96.4-97.4%). If nonevaluable MDCT investigations were included, the per-patient specificity was reduced from 91.0% to 89.1% (p > 0.05) when allocating excluded patients as having significant coronary artery stenosis, and the sensitivity was reduced from 97.7% to 96.2% (p > 0.05) when allocating excluded patients as not having significant stenosis. The per-patient prevalence of coronary artery stenosis had no significant influence on the sensitivity for detecting significant stenosis. CONCLUSION: Forty- and 64-MDCT provide good-to-excellent performance in detecting or ruling out significant coronary artery stenosis, with better results for proximal than for distal coronary artery segments.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to assess the diagnostic performance of thin-slice (< or = 0.625 mm) MDCT coronary angiography compared with invasive coronary angiography for the detection of significant (> or = 50%) stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two articles on 40- and 64-MDCT coronary angiography were included. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated on a per-patient and per-segment basis; in addition, proximal versus distal segments were evaluated. The effect of nonevaluable patients, nonevaluable segments, and disease prevalence on diagnostic performance was assessed. RESULTS: Pooled sensitivity on a patient level was 97.7% ([95% CI] 96.2-98.7%) and specificity 91.0% (88.5-93.1%). Pooled sensitivity on a segmental level was 90.8% (89.0-92.4%) and specificity 95.7% (95.2-96.1%); for proximal segments, respectively, 94.2% (92.3-95.7%) and 94.1% (93.4-94.8%), and for distal segments 84.8% (81.1-88.0%) and 96.9% (96.4-97.4%). If nonevaluable MDCT investigations were included, the per-patient specificity was reduced from 91.0% to 89.1% (p > 0.05) when allocating excluded patients as having significant coronary artery stenosis, and the sensitivity was reduced from 97.7% to 96.2% (p > 0.05) when allocating excluded patients as not having significant stenosis. The per-patient prevalence of coronary artery stenosis had no significant influence on the sensitivity for detecting significant stenosis. CONCLUSION: Forty- and 64-MDCT provide good-to-excellent performance in detecting or ruling out significant coronary artery stenosis, with better results for proximal than for distal coronary artery segments.
Authors: Wehab Ahmed; Michiel A de Graaf; Alexander Broersen; Pieter H Kitslaar; Elco Oost; Jouke Dijkstra; Jeroen J Bax; Johan H C Reiber; Arthur J Scholte Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Moritz H Albrecht; John W Nance; U Joseph Schoepf; Brian E Jacobs; Richard R Bayer; Sheldon E Litwin; Michael A Reynolds; Katharina Otani; Stefanie Mangold; Akos Varga-Szemes; Domenico De Santis; Marwen Eid; Georg Apfaltrer; Christian Tesche; Markus Goeller; Thomas J Vogl; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: João L A A Falcão; Breno A A Falcão; Swaminatha V Gurudevan; Carlos M Campos; Expedito R Silva; Roberto Kalil-Filho; Carlos E Rochitte; Afonso A Shiozaki; Otavio R Coelho-Filho; Pedro A Lemos Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Christian B van der Pol; Matthew D F McInnes; William Petrcich; Adam S Tunis; Ramez Hanna Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Noortje van der Bijl; Raoul M S Joemai; Bart J A Mertens; Albert de Roos; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Jeroen J Bax; Joanne D Schuijf; Jacob Geleijns; Lucia J M Kroft Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-09-22 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Amr Abdelhamed; Shin-Ichi Hisasue; Essam A Nada; Ali M Kassem; Mohammed Abdel-Kareem; Shigeo Horie Journal: Sex Med Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 2.491