PURPOSE: This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for detecting significant coronary artery stenosis (≥50% lumen reduction) at different coronary calcium score (CACS) values with conventional coronary angiography (CAG) as the reference standard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 1,500 patients (928 men, mean age 58.2±12.5 years) in sinus rhythm who underwent CTCA (64-slice technology) and CAG were enrolled. Diagnostic accuracy and likelihood ratios (LR) of CTCA were evaluated against CAG for the total population and in different CACS classes (0; 1-10; 11-100; 101-400; 401-1,000; >1,000). RESULTS: The prevalence of obstructive disease was 51% (23.5% single vessel; 27.5% multivessel; progressive increase from 17.9% to 94% through the CACS classes). In the per-patient analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CTCA were 99%, 92%, 94% and 99%, respectively. Per-patient analysis showed a worse PPV of CTCA (76-77%) in classes with low CACS (1-10/11-100). Per-patient LR were higher in classes with extreme CACS values (0 = LR+ 18.3 and LR- = 0.0; c1,000 = LR+ 17.0 and LR- = 0.0) with values always >7 for LR+ and <0.033 for LR- for all CACS classes. CONCLUSIONS: CTCA is a reliable diagnostic modality, with high sensitivity and NPV regardless of CACS.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for detecting significant coronary artery stenosis (≥50% lumen reduction) at different coronary calcium score (CACS) values with conventional coronary angiography (CAG) as the reference standard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 1,500 patients (928 men, mean age 58.2±12.5 years) in sinus rhythm who underwent CTCA (64-slice technology) and CAG were enrolled. Diagnostic accuracy and likelihood ratios (LR) of CTCA were evaluated against CAG for the total population and in different CACS classes (0; 1-10; 11-100; 101-400; 401-1,000; >1,000). RESULTS: The prevalence of obstructive disease was 51% (23.5% single vessel; 27.5% multivessel; progressive increase from 17.9% to 94% through the CACS classes). In the per-patient analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CTCA were 99%, 92%, 94% and 99%, respectively. Per-patient analysis showed a worse PPV of CTCA (76-77%) in classes with low CACS (1-10/11-100). Per-patient LR were higher in classes with extreme CACS values (0 = LR+ 18.3 and LR- = 0.0; c1,000 = LR+ 17.0 and LR- = 0.0) with values always >7 for LR+ and <0.033 for LR- for all CACS classes. CONCLUSIONS: CTCA is a reliable diagnostic modality, with high sensitivity and NPV regardless of CACS.
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; Nico R Mollet; Pedro A Lemos; Franceso Saia; Giuseppe Runza; Massimo Midiri; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Giuseppe Runza; Ludovico La Grutta; Alessandro Palumbo; Nico R Mollet; Lorenzo Brambilla; Massimo Gualerzi; Giacomo Luccichenti; Riccardo Marano; Gabriel P Krestin; Paolo Coruzzi; Massimo Midiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Stephen Schroeder; Stephan Achenbach; Frank Bengel; Christof Burgstahler; Filippo Cademartiri; Pim de Feyter; Richard George; Philipp Kaufmann; Andreas F Kopp; Juhani Knuuti; Dieter Ropers; Joanne Schuijf; Laurens F Tops; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Annick C Weustink; Nico R Mollet; Lisan A Neefjes; W Bob Meijboom; Tjebbe W Galema; Carlos A van Mieghem; Stamatis Kyrzopoulous; Rick Neoh Eu; Koen Nieman; Filippo Cademartiri; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Eric Boersma; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: E Maffei; A Palumbo; C Martini; W Meijboom; C Tedeschi; P Spagnolo; A Zuccarelli; A Weustink; T Torri; N Mollet; S Seitun; G P Krestin; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; A Palumbo; C Martini; A Cuttone; F Ugo; E Emiliano; A Menozzi; L Vignali; V Brambilla; P Coruzzi; A Weustink; N Mollet; D Ardissino; C Reverberi; G Crisi; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Martijn A M den Dekker; Kristof de Smet; Geertruida H de Bock; Rene A Tio; Matthijs Oudkerk; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrea Igoren Guaricci; Delia De Santis; Mariangela Carbone; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Marco Guglielmo; Andrea Baggiano; Gaetano Serviddio; Gianluca Pontone Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 3.411