BACKGROUND: The incremental value of regional left ventricular function (LVF) over coronary assessment to detect acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 356 patients (mean age, 53+/-12 years; 62% men) with acute chest pain and inconclusive initial emergency department evaluation. Patients underwent 64-slice contrast-enhanced cardiac computed tomography before hospital admission. Caregivers and patients remained blinded to the results. Regional LVF and presence of coronary atherosclerotic plaque and significant stenosis (>50%) were separately assessed by 2 independent readers. Incremental value of regional LVF to predict ACS was determined in the entire cohort and in subgroups of patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease, inconclusive assessment for stenosis (defined as inability to exclude significant stenosis due to calcium or motion), and significant stenosis. During their index hospitalization, 31 patients were ultimately diagnosed with ACS (8 myocardial infarction, 22 unstable angina), of which 74% (23 patients) had regional LV dysfunction. Adding regional LVF resulted in a 10% increase in sensitivity to detect ACS by cardiac computed tomography (87%; 95% confidence interval, 70% to 96%) and significantly improved the overall accuracy (c-statistic: 0.88 versus 0.94 and 0.79 versus 0.88, for extent of plaque and presence of stenosis, respectively; both P<0.03). The diagnostic accuracy of regional LVF for detection of ACS has 89% sensitivity and 86% specificity in patients with significant stenosis (n=33) and 60% sensitivity and 86% specificity in patients with inconclusive coronary computed tomographic angiography (n=33). CONCLUSIONS: Regional LVF assessment at rest improves diagnostic accuracy for ACS in patients with acute chest pain, especially in those with coronary artery disease and thus may be helpful to guide further management in patients at intermediate risk for ACS.
BACKGROUND: The incremental value of regional left ventricular function (LVF) over coronary assessment to detect acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 356 patients (mean age, 53+/-12 years; 62% men) with acute chest pain and inconclusive initial emergency department evaluation. Patients underwent 64-slice contrast-enhanced cardiac computed tomography before hospital admission. Caregivers and patients remained blinded to the results. Regional LVF and presence of coronary atherosclerotic plaque and significant stenosis (>50%) were separately assessed by 2 independent readers. Incremental value of regional LVF to predict ACS was determined in the entire cohort and in subgroups of patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease, inconclusive assessment for stenosis (defined as inability to exclude significant stenosis due to calcium or motion), and significant stenosis. During their index hospitalization, 31 patients were ultimately diagnosed with ACS (8 myocardial infarction, 22 unstable angina), of which 74% (23 patients) had regional LV dysfunction. Adding regional LVF resulted in a 10% increase in sensitivity to detect ACS by cardiac computed tomography (87%; 95% confidence interval, 70% to 96%) and significantly improved the overall accuracy (c-statistic: 0.88 versus 0.94 and 0.79 versus 0.88, for extent of plaque and presence of stenosis, respectively; both P<0.03). The diagnostic accuracy of regional LVF for detection of ACS has 89% sensitivity and 86% specificity in patients with significant stenosis (n=33) and 60% sensitivity and 86% specificity in patients with inconclusive coronary computed tomographic angiography (n=33). CONCLUSIONS: Regional LVF assessment at rest improves diagnostic accuracy for ACS in patients with acute chest pain, especially in those with coronary artery disease and thus may be helpful to guide further management in patients at intermediate risk for ACS.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James E Udelson; Joni R Beshansky; Daniel S Ballin; James A Feldman; John L Griffith; Jonathan Handler; Gary V Heller; Robert C Hendel; J Hector Pope; Robin Ruthazer; Ethan J Spiegler; Robert H Woolard; Harry P Selker Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Ezra A Amsterdam; J Douglas Kirk; Deborah B Diercks; William R Lewis; Samuel D Turnipseed Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-07-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Francis M Fesmire; Alan D Hughes; Edward P Fody; Alan P Jackson; Connie E Fesmire; Mark A Gilbert; Paul K Stout; James F Wojcik; David R Wharton; James H Creel Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Eugene Braunwald; Elliott M Antman; John W Beasley; Robert M Califf; Melvin D Cheitlin; Judith S Hochman; Robert H Jones; Dean Kereiakes; Joel Kupersmith; Thomas N Levin; Carl J Pepine; John W Schaeffer; Earl E Smith; David E Steward; Pierre Theroux; Raymond J Gibbons; Joseph S Alpert; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Gabriel Gregoratos; Loren F Hiratzka; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Raymond Y Kwong; Adam E Schussheim; Suresh Rekhraj; Anthony H Aletras; Nancy Geller; Janice Davis; Timothy F Christian; Robert S Balaban; Andrew E Arai Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ammar Sarwar; Michael D Shapiro; Khurram Nasir; Koen Nieman; Cesar H Nomura; Thomas J Brady; Ricardo C Cury Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2009-05-12
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: Ricardo C Cury; Gudrun Feuchtner; Carol Mascioli; Jonathon Fialkow; Paul Andrulonis; Tomas Villanueva; Constantino S Pena; Warren R Janowitz; Barry T Katzen; Jack A Ziffer Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Xiaohan Hu; Alexander Engler; J Matthias Kerl; Martin Beeres; Claudia Frellesen; Wolfgang Luboldt; Thomas J Vogl; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas Lehnert Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Rui Wang; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf; Christian Canstein; James V Spearman; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Udo Hoffmann; Quynh A Truong; Jerome L Fleg; Alexander Goehler; Scott Gazelle; Stephen Wiviott; Hang Lee; James E Udelson; David Schoenfeld Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Christopher L Schlett; Dahlia Banerji; Emily Siegel; Fabian Bamberg; Sam J Lehman; Maros Ferencik; Thomas J Brady; John T Nagurney; Udo Hoffmann; Quynh A Truong Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-05
Authors: A Pursnani; A Lee; T Mayrhofer; M Panagia; U Sharma; S Abbara; U Hoffmann; B B Ghoshhajra Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 3.039