Purpose: This study was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for detecting significant coronary artery stenosis (≥50% lumen reduction) compared with conventional coronary angiography (CAG) in a male and female population. Material and methods: A total of 1,372 patients (882 men, 490 women; mean age 59.3 ± 11.9 years) in sinus rhythm imaged with CTCA (64-slice technology) and CAG were enrolled. Diagnostic accuracy and likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) of CTCA were assessed against CAG for the male and female populations. Results: The prevalence of obstructive disease was 53% (men 58%; women 43%). CAG demonstrated the absence of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in 47% (men 42%; women 56%), single-vessel disease in 25% (men 36%; women 22%) and multivessel disease in 29% (men 32%; women 23%) of patients. In the per-patient analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of CTCA were 99% (men 98%; women 100%), 92% (men 92%; women 92%), 94% (men 95%; women 90%) and 99% (men 98%; women 100%), respectively. The per-patient likelihood ratios (LR) in the total population (LR+=12.4 and LR-=0.011), the male (LR+=12.9 and LR-=0.016) and female (LR =11.9 and LR-=0) populations were very good. We observed no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between male and female populations. Conclusions: CTCA is a reliable diagnostic modality with high sensitivity and NPV in the female population.

Conventional coronary angiography, CT coronary angiography, Diagnostic accuracy, Female, Gender, Male, Registry
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0693-6, hdl.handle.net/1765/62219
La Radiologia Medica
Department of Cardiology

Maffei, E, Martini, C, Tedeschi, C, Spagnolo, P, Zuccarelli, A, Arcadi, T, … Cademartiri, F. (2012). Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in a large population of patients without revascularisation: Registry data on the comparison between male and female population. La Radiologia Medica, 117(1), 6–18. doi:10.1007/s11547-011-0693-6