OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performance of CT coronary angiography (CTCA) in detecting and excluding left main (LM) and/or three-vessel CAD ("high-risk" CAD) in symptomatic patients and to compare its discriminatory value with the Duke risk score and calcium score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2004 and 2011, a total of 1,159 symptomatic patients (61 ± 11 years, 31 % women) with stable angina, without prior revascularisation underwent both invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and CTCA. All patients gave written informed consent for the additional CTCA. High-risk CAD was defined as LM and/or three-vessel obstructive CAD (≥50 % diameter stenosis). RESULTS: A total of 197 (17 %) patients had high-risk CAD as determined by ICA. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratios of CTCA were 95 % (95 % CI 91-97 %), 83 % (80-85 %), 53 % (48-58 %), 99 % (98-99 %), 5.47 and 0.06, respectively. CTCA provided incremental value (AUC 0.90, P < 0.001) in the discrimination of high-risk CAD compared with the Duke risk score and calcium score. CONCLUSIONS: CTCA accurately excludes high-risk CAD in symptomatic patients. The detection of high-risk CAD is suboptimal owing to the high percentage (47 %) of overestimation of high-risk CAD. CTCA provides incremental value in the discrimination of high-risk CAD compared with the Duke risk score and calcium score. KEY POINTS: • Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) accurately excludes high-risk coronary artery disease. • CTCA overestimates high-risk coronary artery disease in 47 %. • CTCA discriminates high-risk CAD better than clinical evaluation and coronary calcification.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performance of CT coronary angiography (CTCA) in detecting and excluding left main (LM) and/or three-vessel CAD ("high-risk" CAD) in symptomatic patients and to compare its discriminatory value with the Duke risk score and calcium score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2004 and 2011, a total of 1,159 symptomatic patients (61 ± 11 years, 31 % women) with stable angina, without prior revascularisation underwent both invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and CTCA. All patients gave written informed consent for the additional CTCA. High-risk CAD was defined as LM and/or three-vessel obstructive CAD (≥50 % diameter stenosis). RESULTS: A total of 197 (17 %) patients had high-risk CAD as determined by ICA. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratios of CTCA were 95 % (95 % CI 91-97 %), 83 % (80-85 %), 53 % (48-58 %), 99 % (98-99 %), 5.47 and 0.06, respectively. CTCA provided incremental value (AUC 0.90, P < 0.001) in the discrimination of high-risk CAD compared with the Duke risk score and calcium score. CONCLUSIONS: CTCA accurately excludes high-risk CAD in symptomatic patients. The detection of high-risk CAD is suboptimal owing to the high percentage (47 %) of overestimation of high-risk CAD. CTCA provides incremental value in the discrimination of high-risk CAD compared with the Duke risk score and calcium score. KEY POINTS: • Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) accurately excludes high-risk coronary artery disease. • CTCA overestimates high-risk coronary artery disease in 47 %. • CTCA discriminates high-risk CAD better than clinical evaluation and coronary calcification.
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: Bon-Kwon Koo; Andrejs Erglis; Joon-Hyung Doh; David V Daniels; Sanda Jegere; Hyo-Soo Kim; Allison Dunning; Tony DeFrance; Alexandra Lansky; Jonathan Leipsic; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Anoeshka S Dharampal; Alexia Rossi; Stella L Papadopoulou; Annick C Weustink; Eric Boersma; Koen Nieman; Chia-Hui Chen; Marcel Dijkshoorn; Nico R Mollet; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Coron Artery Dis Date: 2011 Impact factor: 1.439
Authors: Fabian Bamberg; Alexander Becker; Florian Schwarz; Roy P Marcus; Martin Greif; Franz von Ziegler; Ron Blankstein; Udo Hoffmann; Wieland H Sommer; Verena S Hoffmann; Thorsten R C Johnson; Hans-Christoph R Becker; Bernd J Wintersperger; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D B Pryor; L Shaw; C B McCants; K L Lee; D B Mark; F E Harrell; L H Muhlbaier; R M Califf Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1993-01-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Matthew P Ostrom; Ambarish Gopal; Naser Ahmadi; Khurram Nasir; Eric Yang; Ioannis Kakadiaris; Ferdinand Flores; Song S Mao; Matthew J Budoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: James K Min; Leslee J Shaw; Richard B Devereux; Peter M Okin; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Donald J Russo; Nicholas J Lippolis; Daniel S Berman; Tracy Q Callister Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Si Eun Lee; Kyunghwa Han; Jin Hur; Young Jin Kim; Hye-Jeong Lee; Yoo Jin Hong; Dong Jin Im; Byoung Wook Choi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 5.315