OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the accuracy of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and conventional coronary angiography (CCA) for stenosis detection using composite findings from both tests as an enhanced reference standard. METHODS: One hundred thirteen patients underwent CCTA and CCA. Per-segment and per-patient accuracy of CCTA compared with initial CCA interpretation were determined. Angiographers were then unblinded to the CCTA results and re-evaluation of the CCA studies was performed with knowledge of CCTA findings, which was used as an enhanced reference standard to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA versus CCA. RESULTS: When using the enhanced reference standard instead of initial CCA interpretation, CCTA accuracy for identifying segments (patients) with ≥50% stenosis increased from 97.7% (96.5%) to 98.1% (98.2%), sensitivity from 90.5% (100%) to 90.8% (100%), and specificity from 98.4% (94.3%) to 98.9% (97.1%). CCTA identified six segments and two patients with stenoses ≥50% missed on initial CCA interpretation. Compared with the enhanced reference standard the accuracies of CCTA and of initial CCA interpretation were not different (p = 0.87). CONCLUSION: CCTA compares favourably with CCA for stenosis detection. Use of a composite reference standard combining findings from both tests can control for the effect of false-negative CCA results when evaluating the accuracy of CCTA.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the accuracy of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and conventional coronary angiography (CCA) for stenosis detection using composite findings from both tests as an enhanced reference standard. METHODS: One hundred thirteen patients underwent CCTA and CCA. Per-segment and per-patient accuracy of CCTA compared with initial CCA interpretation were determined. Angiographers were then unblinded to the CCTA results and re-evaluation of the CCA studies was performed with knowledge of CCTA findings, which was used as an enhanced reference standard to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA versus CCA. RESULTS: When using the enhanced reference standard instead of initial CCA interpretation, CCTA accuracy for identifying segments (patients) with ≥50% stenosis increased from 97.7% (96.5%) to 98.1% (98.2%), sensitivity from 90.5% (100%) to 90.8% (100%), and specificity from 98.4% (94.3%) to 98.9% (97.1%). CCTA identified six segments and two patients with stenoses ≥50% missed on initial CCA interpretation. Compared with the enhanced reference standard the accuracies of CCTA and of initial CCA interpretation were not different (p = 0.87). CONCLUSION:CCTA compares favourably with CCA for stenosis detection. Use of a composite reference standard combining findings from both tests can control for the effect of false-negative CCA results when evaluating the accuracy of CCTA.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
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: I De Scheerder; F De Man; M C Herregods; K Wilczek; L Barrios; E Raymenants; W Desmet; H De Geest; J Piessens Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1994-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Stephanie Busch; Alexander W Leber; Alexander Becker; Bernd J Wintersperger; Carsten Rist; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Ulrike Ropers; Dieter Ropers; Tobias Pflederer; Katharina Anders; Axel Kuettner; Nikolaos I Stilianakis; Sei Komatsu; Willi Kalender; Werner Bautz; Werner G Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-12-18 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Matthias S May; Paul Deak; Axel Kuettner; Michael M Lell; Wolfgang Wuest; Michael Scharf; Andrea K Keller; Lothar Häberle; Stephan Achenbach; Martin Seltmann; Michael Uder; Willi A Kalender Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-10-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nitesh Nerlekar; Brian S Ko; Arthur Nasis; James D Cameron; Michael Leung; Adam J Brown; Dennis T L Wong; Philip J Ngu; John M Troupis; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2017-06
Authors: Christophe T Arendt; Patricia Tischendorf; Julian L Wichmann; Michael Messerli; Lucas Jörg; Niklas Ehl; Robin F Gohmann; Simon Wildermuth; Thomas J Vogl; Ralf W Bauer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 5.315