Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive 64-slice CT coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris
European Radiology: journal of the European Congress of Radiology , Volume 16 - Issue 3 p. 575- 582
Multislice computed tomography (CT) is an emerging technique for the non-invasive detection of coronary stenoses. While the diagnostic accuracy of 4-slice scanners was limited, 16-slice CT imagers showed promising results due to increased temporal and spatial resolution. These technical advances prompted us to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 64-slice CT coronary angiography in the detection of significant stenoses (defined as ≥50% luminal diameter reduction) versus invasive quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). Thirty-five patients with stable angina pectoris underwent CT coronary angiography performed with a 64-slice scanner (gantry rotation time 330 ms, individual detector width 0.6 mm) prior to conventional coronary angiography. Patients with heart rates >70 beats/min received 100 mg metoprolol orally. One hundred millilitres of contrast agent with an iodine concentration of 400 mgl/ml were injected at a rate of 5 ml/s into the antecubital vein. The CT scan was triggered with the bolus tracking technique. The sensitivity, specificity and the positive and negative predictive values of 64-slice CT were 99%, 96%, 78% and 99%, respectively, on a per-segment basis. The values obtained on a per-patient basis were 100%, 90%, 96% and 100%, respectively. When referral to catheterisation is questionable, CT coronary angiography may identify subjects with normal angiograms and consistently decrease the number of unnecessary invasive procedures.
|European Radiology: journal of the European Congress of Radiology|
|Organisation||Department of Cardiology|
Pugliese, F, Mollet, N.R.A, Runza, G, van Mieghem, C.A.G, Meijboom, W.B, Malagutti, P, … Cademartiri, F. (2006). Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive 64-slice CT coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris. European Radiology: journal of the European Congress of Radiology, 16(3), 575–582. doi:10.1007/s00330-005-0041-0