PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of stress electrocardiogram (ECG) and computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for the detection of significant coronary artery stenosis (> or =50%) in the real world using conventional CA as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 236 consecutive patients (159 men, 77 women; mean age 62.8+/-10.2 years) at moderate risk and with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) were enrolled in the study and underwent stress ECG, CTCA and CA. The CTCA scan was performed after i.v. administration of a 100-ml bolus of iodinated contrast material. The stress ECG and CTCA reports were used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy compared with CA in the detection of significant stenosis > or =50%. RESULTS: We excluded 16 patients from the analysis because of the nondiagnostic quality of stress ECG and/or CTCA. The prevalence of disease demonstrated at CA was 62% (n=220), 51% in the population with comparable stress ECG and CTCA (n=147) and 84% in the population with equivocal stress ECG (n=73). Stress ECG was classified as equivocal in 73 cases (33.2%), positive in 69 (31.4%) and negative in 78 (35.5%). In the per-patient analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of stress ECG was sensitivity 47%, specificity 53%, positive predictive value (PPV) 51% and negative predictive value (NPV) 49%. On stress ECG, 40 (27.2%) patients were misclassified as negative, and 34 (23.1%) patients with nonsignificant stenosis were overestimated as positive. The diagnostic accuracy of CTCA was sensitivity 96%, specificity 65%, PPV 74% and NPV 94%. CTCA incorrectly classified three (2%) as negative and 25 (17%) as positive. The difference in diagnostic accuracy between stress ECG and CTCA was significant (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CTCA in the real world has significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared with stress ECG and could be used as a first-line study in patients at moderate risk.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of stress electrocardiogram (ECG) and computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for the detection of significant coronary artery stenosis (> or =50%) in the real world using conventional CA as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 236 consecutive patients (159 men, 77 women; mean age 62.8+/-10.2 years) at moderate risk and with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) were enrolled in the study and underwent stress ECG, CTCA and CA. The CTCA scan was performed after i.v. administration of a 100-ml bolus of iodinated contrast material. The stress ECG and CTCA reports were used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy compared with CA in the detection of significant stenosis > or =50%. RESULTS: We excluded 16 patients from the analysis because of the nondiagnostic quality of stress ECG and/or CTCA. The prevalence of disease demonstrated at CA was 62% (n=220), 51% in the population with comparable stress ECG and CTCA (n=147) and 84% in the population with equivocal stress ECG (n=73). Stress ECG was classified as equivocal in 73 cases (33.2%), positive in 69 (31.4%) and negative in 78 (35.5%). In the per-patient analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of stress ECG was sensitivity 47%, specificity 53%, positive predictive value (PPV) 51% and negative predictive value (NPV) 49%. On stress ECG, 40 (27.2%) patients were misclassified as negative, and 34 (23.1%) patients with nonsignificant stenosis were overestimated as positive. The diagnostic accuracy of CTCA was sensitivity 96%, specificity 65%, PPV 74% and NPV 94%. CTCA incorrectly classified three (2%) as negative and 25 (17%) as positive. The difference in diagnostic accuracy between stress ECG and CTCA was significant (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CTCA in the real world has significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared with stress ECG and could be used as a first-line study in patients at moderate risk.
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; 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: Joanne D Schuijf; William Wijns; J Wouter Jukema; Douwe E Atsma; Albert de Roos; Hildo J Lamb; Marcel P M Stokkel; Petra Dibbets-Schneider; Isabel Decramer; Pieter De Bondt; Ernst E van der Wall; Piet K Vanhoenacker; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: F Cademartiri; L La Grutta; A Palumbo; E Maffei; A Aldrovandi; R Malagò; F Alberghina; F Pugliese; G Runza; M Belgrano; M Midiri; M A Cova; G P Krestin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Sebastian Leschka; Hans Scheffel; Tobias Krauss; Lotus Desbiolles; André Plass; Michele Genoni; Thomas G Flohr; Simon Wildermuth; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nico R Mollet; Filippo Cademartiri; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Giuseppe Runza; Eugène P McFadden; Timo Baks; Patrick W Serruys; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-10-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Koen Nieman; Filippo Cademartiri; Pedro A Lemos; Rolf Raaijmakers; Peter M T Pattynama; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 29.690
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: 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: 2011-03-19 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