Sign up for email alerts to receive notifications of new articles published in Clinical Medicine Insights: Cardiology
Background: Multi-detector computed tomography (CT) has emerged as a modality for the non-invasive assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Prior studies have selected patients for evaluation and have excluded many of the “real-world” patients commonly encountered in daily practice. We compared 64-detector-CT (64-CT) to conventional coronary angiography (CA) to investigate the accuracy of 64-CT in determining significant coronary stenoses in a “real-world” clinical population.
Methods: A total of 1,818 consecutive patients referred for 64-CT were evaluated. CT angiography was performed using the GE LightSpeed VCT (GE® Healthcare). Forty-one patients in whom 64-CT results prompted CA investigation were further evaluated, and results of the two diagnostic modalities were compared.
Results: A total of 164 coronary arteries and 410 coronary segments were evaluated in 41 patients (30 men, 11 women, age 39–85 years) who were identified by 64-CT to have significant coronary stenoses and who thereafter underwent CA. The overall per-vessel sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy at the 50% stenosis level were 86%, 84%, 65%, 95%, and 85%, respectively, and 77%, 93%, 61%, 97%, and 91%, respectively, in the per-segment analysis at the 50% stenosis level.
Conclusion: 64-CT is an accurate imaging tool that allows a non-invasive assessment of significant CAD with a high diagnostic accuracy in a “real-world” population of patients. The sensitivity and specificity that we noted are not as high as those in prior reports, but we evaluated a population of patients that is typically encountered in clinical practice and therefore see more “real-world” results.
PDF (1.61 MB PDF FORMAT)
RIS citation (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)
BibTex citation (BIBDESK, LATEX)
My co-authors and I had a very positive experience with the review and publication process in Clinical Medicine Insights: Cardiology. The review was on point, and publication was also rapid and allowed us the needed revisions in the proof preparation process.