OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for the assessment of non-obstructive/obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in high-risk asymptomatic subjects. METHODS: Two hundred and thirteen consecutive asymptomatic subjects (113 male; mean age 53.6 +/- 12.4 years) with more than one risk factor and an inconclusive or unfeasible non-invasive stress test result underwent CACS and CTCA in an outpatient setting. All patients underwent conventional coronary angiography (CAG). Data from CACS (threshold for positive image: Agatston score 1/100/1,000) and CTCA were compared with CAG regarding the degree of CAD (non-obstructive/obstructive; </>or=50% lumen reduction). RESULTS: The mean calcium score was 151 +/- 403 and the prevalence of obstructive CAD was 17% (8% one-vessel and 10% two-vessel disease). Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CACS were: 97%, 75%, 45%, and 100%, respectively (Agatston >or=1); 73%, 90%, 60%, and 94%, respectively (Agatston >or=100); 30%, 98%, 79%, and 87%, respectively (Agatston >or=1,000). Per-patient values for CTCA were 100%, 98%, 97%, and 100%, respectively (p < 0.05). CTCA detected 65% prevalence of all CAD (48% non-obstructive), while CACS detected 37% prevalence of all CAD (21% non-obstructive) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: CACS proved inadequate for the detection of obstructive and non-obstructive CAD compared with CTCA. CTCA has a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of non-obstructive and obstructive CAD in high-risk asymptomatic patients with inconclusive or unfeasible stress test results.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for the assessment of non-obstructive/obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in high-risk asymptomatic subjects. METHODS: Two hundred and thirteen consecutive asymptomatic subjects (113 male; mean age 53.6 +/- 12.4 years) with more than one risk factor and an inconclusive or unfeasible non-invasive stress test result underwent CACS and CTCA in an outpatient setting. All patients underwent conventional coronary angiography (CAG). Data from CACS (threshold for positive image: Agatston score 1/100/1,000) and CTCA were compared with CAG regarding the degree of CAD (non-obstructive/obstructive; </>or=50% lumen reduction). RESULTS: The mean calcium score was 151 +/- 403 and the prevalence of obstructive CAD was 17% (8% one-vessel and 10% two-vessel disease). Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CACS were: 97%, 75%, 45%, and 100%, respectively (Agatston >or=1); 73%, 90%, 60%, and 94%, respectively (Agatston >or=100); 30%, 98%, 79%, and 87%, respectively (Agatston >or=1,000). Per-patient values for CTCA were 100%, 98%, 97%, and 100%, respectively (p < 0.05). CTCA detected 65% prevalence of all CAD (48% non-obstructive), while CACS detected 37% prevalence of all CAD (21% non-obstructive) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: CACS proved inadequate for the detection of obstructive and non-obstructive CAD compared with CTCA. CTCA has a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of non-obstructive and obstructive CAD in high-risk asymptomatic patients with inconclusive or unfeasible stress test results.
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: Gian Luca Di Tanna; Elena Berti; Elisa Stivanello; Filippo Cademartiri; Stephan Achenbach; Maria Domenica Camerlingo; Roberto Grilli Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2008-08-30 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: David A Bluemke; Stephan Achenbach; Matthew Budoff; Thomas C Gerber; Bernard Gersh; L David Hillis; W Gregory Hundley; Warren J Manning; Beth Feller Printz; Matthias Stuber; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-06-27 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: Riccardo Marano; Francesco De Cobelli; Irene Floriani; Christoph Becker; Christopher Herzog; Maurizio Centonze; Giovanni Morana; Gian Franco Gualdi; Guido Ligabue; Gianluca Pontone; Carlo Catalano; Dante Chiappino; Massimo Midiri; Giovanni Simonetti; Filippo Marchisio; Lucio Olivetti; Rossella Fattori; Lorenzo Bonomo; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Morteza Naghavi; Peter Libby; Erling Falk; S Ward Casscells; Silvio Litovsky; John Rumberger; Juan Jose Badimon; Christodoulos Stefanadis; Pedro Moreno; Gerard Pasterkamp; Zahi Fayad; Peter H Stone; Sergio Waxman; Paolo Raggi; Mohammad Madjid; Alireza Zarrabi; Allen Burke; Chun Yuan; Peter J Fitzgerald; David S Siscovick; Chris L de Korte; Masanori Aikawa; K E Juhani Airaksinen; Gerd Assmann; Christoph R Becker; James H Chesebro; Andrew Farb; Zorina S Galis; Chris Jackson; Ik-Kyung Jang; Wolfgang Koenig; Robert A Lodder; Keith March; Jasenka Demirovic; Mohamad Navab; Silvia G Priori; Mark D Rekhter; Raymond Bahr; Scott M Grundy; Roxana Mehran; Antonio Colombo; Eric Boerwinkle; Christie Ballantyne; William Insull; Robert S Schwartz; Robert Vogel; Patrick W Serruys; Goran K Hansson; David P Faxon; Sanjay Kaul; Helmut Drexler; Philip Greenland; James E Muller; Renu Virmani; Paul M Ridker; Douglas P Zipes; Prediman K Shah; James T Willerson Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E di Cesare; I Carbone; A Carriero; M Centonze; F De Cobelli; R De Rosa; P Di Renzi; A Esposito; R Faletti; R Fattori; M Francone; A Giovagnoni; L La Grutta; G Ligabue; L Lovato; R Marano; M Midiri; L Natale; A Romagnoli; V Russo; F Sardanelli; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Jason R Sims; Nandan S Anavekar; Krishnaswamy Chandrasekaran; James M Steckelberg; Walter R Wilson; Bernard J Gersh; Larry M Baddour; Daniel C DeSimone Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: E Maffei; C Martini; S Seitun; T Arcadi; C Tedeschi; A Guaricci; R Malagò; G Tarantini; A Aldrovandi; 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 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: Brian G Kral; Lewis C Becker; Dhananjay Vaidya; Lisa R Yanek; Rehan Qayyum; Stefan L Zimmerman; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Taryn F Moy; Elliot K Fishman; Diane M Becker Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: E Maffei; M Midiri; V Russo; M Rengo; C Tedeschi; P Spagnolo; S Seitun; M Francone; A I Guaricci; N Carrabba; R Malagò; A Cuocolo; T Arcadi; O A Catalano; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 3.469