Literature DB >> 19268514

Clinical relevance and scope of accidental extracoronary findings in coronary computed tomography angiography: a cardiac versus thoracic FOV study.

Iman Aglan1, Daniel Jodocy, Stefan Hiehs, Peter Soegner, Renate Frank, Berhard Haberfellner, Andrea Klauser, Werner Jaschke, Gudrun M Feuchtner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the spectrum and clinical relevance of extracoronary findings in coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and to compare a small (cardiac) field of view (FOV) to a large (thoracic) FOV setting.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 1084 consecutive patients (mean 57 years) with low-to-intermediate risk of coronary artery disease were enrolled. 542 CCTA scans were interpreted with small FOV (160-190mm(2)) encompassing the cardiac region. In another 542 CCTA (patients matched for age and gender), read-out of an additional full FOV (>320mm(2)) covering the thorax was performed. Clinical relevance of extracoronary findings was considered as either "significant" or "non-significant". "Significant" findings were subclassified as either score 1: findings necessitating immediate therapeutic actions, or score 2: findings with undoubted clinical or prognostic relevance, requiring clinical awareness, follow-up or further investigations (non-urgent). "Non-significant" findings were assigned to either score 3: findings not requiring follow-up or further tests, or as score 4: irrelevant incidental findings.
RESULTS: Significantly more patients with extracoronary findings were identified by using a full FOV with 43.2% (234/542) compared to a small FOV with 33.6% (182/542) (p=0.001). Similarly, a higher total number of extracoronary findings (n=394) was found on full FOV compared to small FOV (n=250) (p<0.001). The detection rate of clinically significant findings was higher by using full FOV compared to small FOV (25.6% versus 15.4%) (p<0.001), out of those 2.2% versus 1.8% of findings required immediate actions (score 1), and 23.4% versus 13.6% (p=0.0001), respectively were of clinical relevance (non-urgent, score 2). The rate of malign findings was 0.2%, and of acute pulmonary embolism 0.1%. More lung pathologies were observed by using full FOV compared to small FOV (22% versus 7%) (p<0.0001), and the detection rate of intrapulmonary nodules increased by 2.1%. Prevalence of aortic valve calcification (n=72) was 13.3%, out of those 7% had less than 2cm(2) aortic valve orifice area.
CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of extracoronary findings on CCTA scans is mandatory given high prevalence of clinically significant findings by using a full "thoracic" FOV. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19268514     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.01.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  9 in total

1.  The utility of computed tomography in the context of aortic valve disease.

Authors:  Gudrun M Feuchtner
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Incidental non-cardiac findings of a coronary angiography with a 128-slice multi-detector CT scanner: should we only concentrate on the heart?

Authors:  Olga Lazoura; Katerina Vassiou; Theodora Kanavou; Marianna Vlychou; Dimitrios L Arvanitis; Ioannis V Fezoulidis
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 3.500

3.  The prevalence and clinical importance of incidentally detected noncoronary cardiovascular findings with coronary multidetector CT angiography.

Authors:  Cengiz Erol; Mustafa Koplay; Mehmet Seker; Yahya Paksoy
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 1.704

4.  Incidental cardiac findings on computed tomography imaging of the thorax.

Authors:  Paul Wx Foley; Ali Hamaad; Hossam El-Gendi; Francisco Leyva
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2010-12-03

Review 5.  Unrequested findings on cardiac computed tomography: looking beyond the heart.

Authors:  Constantinus F Buckens; Helena M Verkooijen; Martijn J Gondrie; Pushpa Jairam; Willem P Mali; Yolanda van der Graaf
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Do we really need additional contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography for differential diagnosis in triage of middle-aged subjects with suspected biliary pain.

Authors:  In Kyeom Hwang; Yoon Suk Lee; Jaihwan Kim; Yoon Jin Lee; Ji Hoon Park; Jin-Hyeok Hwang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.889

7.  Incidental Non-cardiac Findings in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Is it Worth Reporting?

Authors:  Subramaniyan Ramanathan; Sushila B Ladumor; Willington Francis; Abdelnasser A Allam; Maryam Alkuwari
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2019-08-02

8.  Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia incidentally detected on coronary CT angiogram: a do-not-miss diagnosis.

Authors:  Shima Behzad; Erik Velez; Mohammad Hosein Najafi; Ali Gholamrezanezhad
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2020-06-09

9.  Detection of relevant extracardiac findings on coronary computed tomography angiography vs. invasive coronary angiography.

Authors:  Dominik Laskowski; Sarah Feger; Maria Bosserdt; Elke Zimmermann; Mahmoud Mohamed; Benjamin Kendziora; Matthias Rief; Henryk Dreger; Melanie Estrella; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 5.315

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.