Results of Patient Acceptance for all Three Tests

*<p>evaluated on a five-point scale (range: 1 = very good to 5 = poor)</p>†<p>evaluated on a five-point scale (range: 1 = none to 5 = very high)</p>‡<p>p<0.001 compared with conventional coronary angiography using Wilcoxon's test for paired samples</p>§<p>p<0.001 compared with MRI using Wilcoxon's test for paired samples</p><p>MSCT = multislice computed tomography; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; Angio = conventional coronary angiography.</p

Figure 2

<p>Comparison of the preference for one of the three diagnostic tests between the 55 patients who received no coronary revascularization (No revascularization) and the 56 patients who underwent subsequent percutaneous or surgical revascularization (Revascularization). Response alternatives were MSCT, MRI, and Angio. The preference for MSCT was only slightly and not significantly reduced in the “Revascularization” group (71%) as compared to the “No revascularization” group (73%), while 12.5% and 11% of the patients in these two groups preferred Angio, respectively.</p

Figure 4

<p>Angio (<i>A</i>) and noninvasive coronary angiography using MSCT (<i>B</i>) and MRI (<i>C</i>) all demonstrate absence of significant stenoses in the right coronary artery (arrow) in a 45-year-old female patient with atypical angina pectoris. Note that MSCT due to higher spatial resolution allows better delineation of the distal segments of the right coronary artery than MRI (asterisks).</p

Figure 1

<p>Average (+SD) subjective pain as assessed with visual analog scales during all three tests (<i>A</i>) and corresponding intraindividual comparisons of pain (<i>B</i>) among the 82 patients who indicated pain during at least one procedure. ^* p<0.001 compared with Angio using the paired t-test. MSCT = multislice computed tomography; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; Angio = conventional coronary angiography.</p

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Three Tests as Suggested by the Patients^*

*<p>multiple suggestions per patient possible. Percentages in brackets are in relation to the number of advantages/disadvantages given for this respective test.</p

Results of Overall Patient Preference for the Three Tests

<p>Overall patient preference was significantly higher for MSCT compared with MRI and Angio (both: p<0.001). A detailed comparison of the preferences for each of the three tests for patients with and without subsequent coronary revascularization is given in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000246#pone-0000246-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2</a>.</p

Distribution of therapies initiated after detection of either vascular or MSK pathologies by CTA.

<p>Distribution of therapies initiated after detection of either vascular or MSK pathologies by CTA.</p

Example of a patient with known chronic PAD.

<p>The MIP (30° LAO) on the left shows the patient’s complex vascular situation with iliacofemoral crossover bypass and chronic SFA occlusions. The right side shows the lumbar spine with herniated vertebral disk between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae and consecutive lumbar spinal stenosis (arrow).</p

Distribution of crEVIFs.

<p>Distribution of crEVIFs.</p

Pie chart for distribution of origin of intermittent claudication assessed with run-off CTA.

<p>The chart presents the distribution and incidence of vascular (VASC), musculoskeletal (MSK), and combined (COMB) causes of intermittent claudication. Additionally, the percentage of patients with clinically relevant extravascular incidental findings (crEVIFs) is displayed for each group (+crEVIFs, shaded area). In the vast majority of cases IC is due to vascular pathology (96%). In 31% of the cases coexisting musculoskeletal findings might also explain intermittent claudication. In only 4% of cases was MSK pathology identified as the only underlying cause.</p