OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess sensitivity and specificity of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for significant stenosis at different degrees of coronary calcification. METHODS: A literature search was performed including studies describing test characteristics of CCTA for significant stenosis, performed with at least 16-MDCT and according to calcium score (CS). Invasive coronary angiography was the reference standard. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of CCTA by CS categories and CT equipment were calculated. RESULTS: Of 14,121 articles, 51 studies reported on the impact of calcium scoring on diagnostic performance of CCTA and could be included in the systematic review. Twenty-seven of these studies (5,203 participants) were suitable for meta-analysis. On a patient-basis, sensitivity of CCTA for significant stenosis was 95.8, 95.6, 97.6 and 99.0% for CS 0-100, 101-400, 401-1,000 and >1,000 respectively. Specificity was 91.2, 88.2, 50.6 and 84.0% respectively. Specificity of CCTA was significantly lower for CS 401-1,000 due to lack of patients without significant stenosis. Sensitivity and specificity of 16-MDCT were significantly lower compared to more modern CT systems. CONCLUSIONS: Even in cases of severe coronary calcification, sensitivity and specificity of CCTA for significant stenosis are high. With 64-MDCT and newer CT systems, a CS cut-off for performing CCTA no longer seems indicated. KEY POINTS: Decisions about performing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) sometimes depend on calcium scoring. CCTA is highly sensitive for coronary stenosis. With 16-MDCT, however, heavy calcification reduces specificity for significant stenosis. For 64-MDCT (and above), CCTA has high specificity, even with severe coronary calcification.
OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess sensitivity and specificity of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for significant stenosis at different degrees of coronary calcification. METHODS: A literature search was performed including studies describing test characteristics of CCTA for significant stenosis, performed with at least 16-MDCT and according to calcium score (CS). Invasive coronary angiography was the reference standard. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of CCTA by CS categories and CT equipment were calculated. RESULTS: Of 14,121 articles, 51 studies reported on the impact of calcium scoring on diagnostic performance of CCTA and could be included in the systematic review. Twenty-seven of these studies (5,203 participants) were suitable for meta-analysis. On a patient-basis, sensitivity of CCTA for significant stenosis was 95.8, 95.6, 97.6 and 99.0% for CS 0-100, 101-400, 401-1,000 and >1,000 respectively. Specificity was 91.2, 88.2, 50.6 and 84.0% respectively. Specificity of CCTA was significantly lower for CS 401-1,000 due to lack of patients without significant stenosis. Sensitivity and specificity of 16-MDCT were significantly lower compared to more modern CT systems. CONCLUSIONS: Even in cases of severe coronary calcification, sensitivity and specificity of CCTA for significant stenosis are high. With 64-MDCT and newer CT systems, a CS cut-off for performing CCTA no longer seems indicated. KEY POINTS: Decisions about performing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) sometimes depend on calcium scoring. CCTA is highly sensitive for coronary stenosis. With 16-MDCT, however, heavy calcification reduces specificity for significant stenosis. For 64-MDCT (and above), CCTA has high specificity, even with severe coronary calcification.
Authors: Jacob M van Werkhoven; Stephanie M de Boer; Joanne D Schuijf; Filippo Cademartiri; Erica Maffei; J Wouter Jukema; Mark J Boogers; Lucia J Kroft; Albert de Roos; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: V Russo; V Gostoli; L Lovato; M Montalti; A Marzocchi; G Gavelli; A Branzi; R Di Bartolomeo; R Fattori Journal: Heart Date: 2006-12-12 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Koen Nieman; Tjebbe W Galema; Lisan A Neefjes; Annick C Weustink; Paul Musters; Adriaan D Moelker; Nico R Mollet; Randall de Visser; Eric Boersma; Pim J de Feijter Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Damini Dey; Cynthia J Lee; Muneo Ohba; Ariel Gutstein; Piotr J Slomka; Victor Cheng; Yasuyuki Suzuki; Shoji Suzuki; Arik Wolak; Ludovic Le Meunier; Louise E J Thomson; Ishac Cohen; John D Friedman; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2008-01-15
Authors: Matthijs Oudkerk; Arthur E Stillman; Sandra S Halliburton; Willi A Kalender; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Cynthia H McCollough; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Leslee J Shaw; William Stanford; Allen J Taylor; Peter M A van Ooijen; Lewis Wexler; Paolo Raggi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Nuno Bettencourt; João Rocha; Mónica Carvalho; Daniel Leite; Andre Michael Toschke; Bruno Melica; Lino Santos; Alberto Rodrigues; Manuel Gonçalves; Pedro Braga; Madalena Teixeira; Lino Simões; Sanjay Rajagopalan; Vasco Gama Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-04-06 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Michael T Lu; Nandini M Meyersohn; Thomas Mayrhofer; Daniel O Bittner; Hamed Emami; Stefan B Puchner; Borek Foldyna; Martin E Mueller; Steven Hearne; Clifford Yang; Stephan Achenbach; Quynh A Truong; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Manesh R Patel; Maros Ferencik; Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gianluca Pontone; Alexia Rossi; Marco Guglielmo; Marc R Dweck; Oliver Gaemperli; Koen Nieman; Francesca Pugliese; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Alessia Gimelli; Bernard Cosyns; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Gitsios Gitsioudis; Waldemar Hosch; Johannes Iwan; Andreas Voss; Edem Atsiatorme; Nina P Hofmann; Sebastian J Buss; Stefan Siebert; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Evangelos Giannitsis; Hugo A Katus; Grigorios Korosoglou Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thijs T Jansz; Meike H Y Go; Nolan S Hartkamp; J Lauran Stöger; Csilla Celeng; Tim Leiner; Pim A de Jong; Frank J L Visseren; Marianne C Verhaar; Brigit C van Jaarsveld Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2021-04-20
Authors: Mihály K de Bie; Maurits S Buiten; André Gaasbeek; Mark J Boogers; Cornelis J Roos; Joanne D Schuijf; M Jacqueline Krol; Ton J Rabelink; Jeroen J Bax; Martin J Schalij; J Wouter Jukema Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 3.240