Diagnostic performance of computed tomography coronary angiography to detect and exclude left main and/or three-vessel coronary artery disease.

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\u2009\ub1\u200911 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 ( 6550 % 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\u2009<\u20090.001) 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

Reproducible Coronary Plaque Quantification by Multislice Computed Tomography

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate reproducibility end accuracy of computer-assisted coronary plaque measurements by multislice computed tomography coronary angiography (QMSCT-CA). Methods and Results: Forty-sight patients undergoing MSCT-CA end coronary arteriography for symptomatic coronary artery disease and quantitative intravascular ultrasound (IVUS, QCU) were examined. Two investigators performed the QMSCT-CA twice end e third investigator performed the QCU, all blinded for each other's results. There was no difference found for the matched region of interest (ROI) lengths (QCU 29.4 ± 13 mm vs. QMSCT-CA 29.6 ± 13 mm, P = 0.6; total length = 1,400 mm). The comparison of volumetric measurements showed (lumen QCU 267 ± 139 mm3 vs. mean QMSCT-CA 177 ± 91 mm3, P < 0.001; vessel 454 ± 194 mm3 vs. 398 ± 187 mm 3, P < 0.001; and plaque 189 ± 93 mm3 vs. 222 ± 121 mm3; investigator 1, P = 0.02; and investigator 2, P = 0.07) significant differences. Automated lumen detection was also applied for QMSCT-CA (218 ± 112 mm3, P < 0.001 vs. QCU). The Interinvestigator variability measurements for QMSCT-CA showed no significant differences. Conclusion: QMSCT-CA systematically underestimates absolute coronary lumen- and vessel dimensions when compared with QCU. However, repeated measurements of coronary plaque by QMSCT-CA showed no statistically significant differences, although, the outcome showed a scattered result. Automated lumen detection for QMSCT-CA showed improved results when compered with those of human investigators

Computed tomography coronary angiography accuracy in women and men at low to intermediate risk of coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CT coronary angiography (CTCA) in women at low to intermediate pre-test probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with men. METHODS: In this retrospective study we included symptomatic patients with low to intermediate risk who underwent both invasive coronary angiography and CTCA. Exclusion criteria were previous revascularisation or myocardial infarction. The pre-test probability of CAD was estimated using the Duke risk score. Thresholds of less than 30 % and 30-90 % were used for determining low and intermediate risk, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of CTCA in detecting obstructive CAD ( 6550 % lumen diameter narrowing) was calculated on patient level. P\u2009<\u20090.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 570 patients (46 % women [262/570]) were included and stratified as low (women 73 % [80/109]) and intermediate risk (women 39 % [182/461]). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were not significantly different in and between women and men at low and intermediate risk. For women vs. men at low risk they were 97 % vs. 100 %, 79 % vs. 90 %, 80 % vs. 80 % and 97 % vs. 100 %, respectively. For intermediate risk they were 99 % vs. 99 %, 72 % vs. 83 %, 88 % vs. 93 % and 98 % vs. 99 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: CTCA has similar diagnostic accuracy in women and men at low and intermediate risk