OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of patient population characteristics on accuracy by computed tomography angiography (CTA) to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: The ability of CTA to exclude obstructive CAD in patients of different pre-test probabilities and in presence of coronary calcification remains uncertain. METHODS: For the CORE-64 (Coronary Artery Evaluation Using 64-Row Multidetector Computed Tomography Angiography) study, 371 patients underwent CTA and cardiac catheterization for the detection of obstructive CAD, defined as ≥50% luminal stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). This analysis includes 80 initially excluded patients with a calcium score ≥600. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate CTA diagnostic accuracy compared to QCA in patients according to calcium score and pre-test probability of CAD. RESULTS: Analysis of patient-based quantitative CTA accuracy revealed an AUC of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 0.95). The AUC remained 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.96) after excluding patients with known CAD but decreased to 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89) in patients with calcium score ≥600 (p = 0.077). While AUCs were similar (0.93, 0.92, and 0.93, respectively) for patients with intermediate, high pre-test probability for CAD, and known CAD, negative predictive values were different: 0.90, 0.83, and 0.50, respectively. Negative predictive values decreased from 0.93 to 0.75 for patients with calcium score <100 or ≥100, respectively (p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: Both pre-test probability for CAD and coronary calcium scoring should be considered before using CTA for excluding obstructive CAD. For that purpose, CTA is less effective in patients with calcium score ≥600 and in patients with a high pre-test probability for obstructive CAD.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of patient population characteristics on accuracy by computed tomography angiography (CTA) to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: The ability of CTA to exclude obstructive CAD in patients of different pre-test probabilities and in presence of coronary calcification remains uncertain. METHODS: For the CORE-64 (Coronary Artery Evaluation Using 64-Row Multidetector Computed Tomography Angiography) study, 371 patients underwent CTA and cardiac catheterization for the detection of obstructive CAD, defined as ≥50% luminal stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). This analysis includes 80 initially excluded patients with a calcium score ≥600. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate CTA diagnostic accuracy compared to QCA in patients according to calcium score and pre-test probability of CAD. RESULTS: Analysis of patient-based quantitative CTA accuracy revealed an AUC of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 0.95). The AUC remained 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.96) after excluding patients with known CAD but decreased to 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89) in patients with calcium score ≥600 (p = 0.077). While AUCs were similar (0.93, 0.92, and 0.93, respectively) for patients with intermediate, high pre-test probability for CAD, and known CAD, negative predictive values were different: 0.90, 0.83, and 0.50, respectively. Negative predictive values decreased from 0.93 to 0.75 for patients with calcium score <100 or ≥100, respectively (p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: Both pre-test probability for CAD and coronary calcium scoring should be considered before using CTA for excluding obstructive CAD. For that purpose, CTA is less effective in patients with calcium score ≥600 and in patients with a high pre-test probability for obstructive CAD.
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Stephan Achenbach; Roger S Blumenthal; J Jeffrey Carr; Jonathan G Goldin; Philip Greenland; Alan D Guerci; Joao A C Lima; Daniel J Rader; Geoffrey D Rubin; Leslee J Shaw; Susan E Wiegers Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-10-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gabija Pundziute; Joanne D Schuijf; J Wouter Jukema; Hildo J Lamb; Albert de Roos; Ernst E van der Wall; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: M A S Cordeiro; J M Miller; A Schmidt; A C Lardo; B D Rosen; D E Bush; J A Brinker; D A Bluemke; E P Shapiro; J A C Lima Journal: Heart Date: 2005-10-26 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Lars Husmann; Tiziano Schepis; Hans Scheffel; Oliver Gaemperli; Sebastian Leschka; Ines Valenta; Pascal Koepfli; Lotus Desbiolles; Paul Stolzmann; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Matthew P Schenker; Sharmila Dorbala; Eric Cho Tek Hong; Frank J Rybicki; Rory Hachamovitch; Raymond Y Kwong; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: W Bob Meijboom; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Nico R Mollet; Francesca Pugliese; Annick C Weustink; Niels van Pelt; Filippo Cademartiri; Koen Nieman; Eric Boersma; Peter de Jaegere; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Julie M Miller; Carlos E Rochitte; Marc Dewey; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Ilan Gottlieb; Narinder Paul; Melvin E Clouse; Edward P Shapiro; John Hoe; Albert C Lardo; David E Bush; Albert de Roos; Christopher Cox; Jeffery Brinker; João A C Lima Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; David Dowe; James G Jollis; Michael Gitter; John Sutherland; Edward Halamert; Markus Scherer; Raye Bellinger; Arthur Martin; Robert Benton; Augustin Delago; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Elsemiek M Engbers; Jorik R Timmer; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Mohamed Mouden; Ad H J Oostdijk; Siert Knollema; Pieter L Jager Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 5.952