OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of elevated heart rate (HR) on the diagnostic accuracy and image quality of second-generation 320-detector computed tomography coronary angiography (320-CTCA). METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected coronary disease referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were prospectively recruited and underwent 320-CTCA. Pre-scan beta-blockers were administered if native HR>80 bpm and post-scan cohorts stratified by traditional (HR ≤60 bpm) and elevated HR (61-80 bpm). A wider phase window was used for the elevated HR group (30-80%). 320-CTCA and ICA were analyzed by independent readers blinded to other data. Significant disease was defined as ≥50% visual stenosis on ICA. Uninterpretable segments by 320-CTCA were considered to be significant on an intention-to-diagnose principle. Image quality was assessed by 5-point Likert score. RESULTS: Of 107 patients studied (1,662 segments), there was no significant difference in sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value between patients with HR ≤60 bpm (n=55) vs. HR 61-80 bpm (n=52): 97%, 88%, 95%, 94% vs. 100%, 88%, 95%, 100%; Receiver operator characteristic-area under the curve 0.93 vs. 0.94, P=0.82). Overall per-patient diagnostic accuracy was 96% in both groups with no significant difference in interpretable segments (Likert ≥2) or median radiation dose (2.4 mSv vs. 2.7 mSv, P=0.35). Only 4/1,662 (0.2%) segments were uninterpretable by motion artefact in the whole cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HR >60 and up to 80bpm, second generation 320-CTCA provides comparably adequate diagnostic accuracy to HR ≤60 without significantly impacting upon overall segmental evaluability.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of elevated heart rate (HR) on the diagnostic accuracy and image quality of second-generation 320-detector computed tomography coronary angiography (320-CTCA). METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected coronary disease referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were prospectively recruited and underwent 320-CTCA. Pre-scan beta-blockers were administered if native HR>80 bpm and post-scan cohorts stratified by traditional (HR ≤60 bpm) and elevated HR (61-80 bpm). A wider phase window was used for the elevated HR group (30-80%). 320-CTCA and ICA were analyzed by independent readers blinded to other data. Significant disease was defined as ≥50% visual stenosis on ICA. Uninterpretable segments by 320-CTCA were considered to be significant on an intention-to-diagnose principle. Image quality was assessed by 5-point Likert score. RESULTS: Of 107 patients studied (1,662 segments), there was no significant difference in sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value between patients with HR ≤60 bpm (n=55) vs. HR 61-80 bpm (n=52): 97%, 88%, 95%, 94% vs. 100%, 88%, 95%, 100%; Receiver operator characteristic-area under the curve 0.93 vs. 0.94, P=0.82). Overall per-patient diagnostic accuracy was 96% in both groups with no significant difference in interpretable segments (Likert ≥2) or median radiation dose (2.4 mSv vs. 2.7 mSv, P=0.35). Only 4/1,662 (0.2%) segments were uninterpretable by motion artefact in the whole cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HR >60 and up to 80bpm, second generation 320-CTCA provides comparably adequate diagnostic accuracy to HR ≤60 without significantly impacting upon overall segmental evaluability.
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: Arthur Nasis; Michael C Leung; Paul R Antonis; James D Cameron; Sam J Lehman; Sarah A Hope; Marcus P Crossett; John M Troupis; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Erica Maffei; Alessandro A Palumbo; Chiara Martini; Carlo Tedeschi; Giuseppe Tarantini; Sara Seitun; Livia Ruffini; Annachiara Aldrovandi; Annick C Weustink; Willem B Meijboom; Nico R Mollet; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter; Filippo Cademartiri Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Michael D Shapiro; Antonio J Pena; John H Nichols; Stewart Worrell; Fabian Bamberg; Nina Dannemann; Suhny Abbara; Ricardo C Cury; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2007-06-22 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Fleur R de Graaf; Joanne D Schuijf; Joëlla E van Velzen; Lucia J Kroft; Albert de Roos; Johannes H C Reiber; Eric Boersma; Martin J Schalij; Fabrizio Spanó; J Wouter Jukema; Ernst E van der Wall; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Nitesh Nerlekar; Yi-Wei Baey; Adam J Brown; Rahul G Muthalaly; Damini Dey; Balaji Tamarappoo; James D Cameron; Thomas H Marwick; Dennis T Wong Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-01-17
Authors: Jordan Laggoune; Nitesh Nerlekar; Kiran Munnur; Brian Sh Ko; James D Cameron; Sujith Seneviratne; Dennis Tl Wong Journal: J Geriatr Cardiol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Nitesh Nerlekar; Udit Thakur; Andrew Lin; Ji Quan Samuel Koh; Elizabeth Potter; David Liu; Rahul G Muthalaly; Hashrul N Rashid; James D Cameron; Damini Dey; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 4.379