Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 2012/9:2 PP.115-122
Objective To investigate the clinical applications of coronary CT angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease and identify factors that affect CT findings. Methods Medical records of patients suspected of coronary artery disease over a period of 12 months from a tertiary teaching hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Patient age, sex (male/female), duration of symptoms and abnormal rates of coronary CT angiography scans were analysed to investigate the relationship among these parameters. The patients by age were characterized into five groups: under 36 years, 36–45 years, 46–55 years, 56–65 years and more than 66 years, respectively; while the duration of symptoms was also classified into five groups: less than one week, one week to one month, one to three months, three to six months and more than six months. Results Of the 880 patient records reviewed, 800 met the above study criteria. Five hundred and forty nine patients demonstrated abnormal CT findings (68.6%). There was no significant difference in the percentage of abnormal CT findings based on patient sex and the duration of symptoms (P= 0.14). The abnormal rates of coronary CT angiography, however, increased significantly with increasing age (P < 0.001); with patients over 65 years of age 2.5 times more likely to have an abnormal CT scan relative to a patient under 45 years. A significant difference was found between abnormal coronary CT angiography and the duration of symptoms (P = 0.012). Conclusions Our results indicate coronary CT angiography findings are significantly related to the patient age group and duration of symptoms. Clinical referral for coronary CT angiography of patients with suspected coronary artery disease needs to be justified with regard to the judicious use of this imaging modality.
1 Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stoke statistics 2010 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010; 121: 948-954.
2 Gaziano TA, Bitton A, Anand S, et al. Growing epidemic of coronary heart disease in low-and middle-income countries. Curr Probl Cardiol 2010; 35: 72-115.
3 WHO. The World Health Report 2002: Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. World Health Organization: Geneva, 2002.
4 Noto TJ Jr, Johnson LW, Krone R, et al. Cardiac catheterization 1990: a report of the registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. (SCA&I). Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1991; 24: 75-83.
5 Sommer T, Hackenbroch M, Hofer U, et al. Coronary MR angiography at 3.0 T versus that at 1.5 T: initial results in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease. Radiology 2005; 234: 718-725.
6 Van der Vaart MG, Meerwaldt R, Slart RHJA, et al. Application of PET/SPECT imaging in vascular disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008; 35: 507-513.
7 Husmann L, Wiegand M, Valenta I, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging with single photon emission computed tomography and positron emission tomography: a comparison with coronary angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008; 24: 511-518.
8 Al Moudi M, Sun Z, Lenzo M. Diagnostic value of SPECT, PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: A systematic review. Biomed Imaging Interv J 2011; 7: E9.
9 Hachamovitch R. Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 2003; 107: 2900-2906.
10 Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998; 97: 535-543.
11 Santana CA, Folks RD, Garcia EV, et al. Quantitative 82Rb PET/CT: Development and validation of myocardial perfusion database. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 1122-1128.
12 Sun Z, Jiang W. Diagnostic value of multislice CT angiography in coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2006; 60: 279-286.
13 Sun Z, Lin CH, Davidson R, et al. Diagnostic value of 64-slice CT angiography in coronary artery disease: A systematic review. Eur J Radiol 2008; 67: 78-84.
14 Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2324-2336.
15 Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 1724-1732.
16 Meijboom WB, Meijs MFL, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 2135-2144.
17 Sun Z, Dimpudus F, Nugroho J, et al. CT virtual intravascular endoscopy assessment of coronary artery plaques: a preliminary study. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: E112-E119.
18 Harada K, Amano T, Uetani T, et al. Accuracy of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography for classification and quantitation of coronary plaque: comparison with integrated backscatter intravascular ultrasound. Int J Cardiol 2011; 149: 95-101.
19 Sun Z, Cao Y, Li H. Multislice computed tomography angiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Geriatr Cardiol 2011; 8: 104-113.
20 Paul JF, Abada HT. Strategies for reduction of radiation dose in cardiac multislice CT. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 2028-2037.
21 Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hermann F, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 2009; 301: 500-507.
22 Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2277-2284.
23 BEIR National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Report VII 2006 Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII-Phase 2. National Research Council: Washington DC, USA.
24 Sun Z, Choo GH, Ng KH. Coronary CT angiography: current status and continuing challenges. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: 495-510.
25 Lucas FL, DeLorenzo MA, Siewers AE, et al. Temporal trends in the utilization of diagnostic testing and treatments for cardiovascular disease in the United States, 1993-2001. Circulation 2006; 113: 374-379.
26 Min JK, Shaw LJ, Berman DS. The present state of coronary computed tomography angiography: a process in evolution. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 957-965.
27 Shreibati JB, Baker LC, Hlatky MA. Association of coronary CT angiography or stress testing with subsequent utilization and spending among medicare beneficiaries. JAMA 2011; 306: 2128-2136.
28 Nielsen LH, Markenvard J, Jensen JM, et al. Frontline diagnostic evaluation of patients suspected of angina by coronary computed tomography reduces downstream resource utilization when compared to conventional ischemia testing. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 27: 813-823.
29 McEvoy JW, Blaha MJ, Nasir K, et al. Impact of coronary computed tomographic angiography results on patient and physician behavior in a low-risk population. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171: 1260-1268.
30 Redberg RF, Walsh J. Pay now, benefits may follow: the case of cardiac computed tomographic angiography. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2309-2311.
31 Redberg RF. Computed tomographic angiography: more than just a pretty picture? J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 1827-1829.
32 Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, et al. ACCF proposed method for evaluating the appropriateness of cardiovascular imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 1606-1613.
33 Hendel R, Patel M, Kramer C, Poon M. Appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48: 735-1097.
34 Sabarudin A, Sun Z, Ng KH. A systematic review of radiation dose associated with different generations of multidetector CT coronary angiography. J Med Imag Radiat Oncol 2012; 56: 5-17.
35 Coles DR, Smail M, Negus I, et al. Comparison of radiation doses from multislice computed tomography coronary angiography and conventional diagnostic angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47: 1840-1845.
36 Schoenhagen P, Thompson CM, Halliburton SS. Low-dose cardiovascular computed tomography: where are the limits? Curr Cardiol Rep 2012; 14: 17-23.
37 Schoenhagen P. Back to the future: coronary CT angiography using prospective ECG triggering. Eur Heart J 2008; 29: 153-154.
38 Sun Z, Ng KH. Diagnostic value of coronary CT angiography with prospective ECG-gating in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. Published Online First: Jan 4 2012. DOI 10.1007/s10554-011-0006-0.
39 Sun Z, Ng KH. Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated multislice CT coronary angiography: A systematic review of radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: E94-E100.
40 Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. www.undemocracy.com/A-63- 398.pdf (Access in April 2012).
41 Davies HE, Wathen CG, Gleeson FV. Risks of exposure to radiological imaging and how to minimise them. BMJ 2011; 342: 589-593.
42 Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 2078-2086.
43 Achenbach S, Moselewski F, Ropers D, et al. Detection of calcified and non-calcified coronary atherosclerotic plaque by contrast-enhanced, submillimeter multi-detector spiral computed tomography: a segment based comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 2004; 109: 14-17.
44 Kim SY, Kim KS, Lee YS, et al. Assessment of non-calcified coronary plaques using 64-slice computed tomography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Korean Circ J 2009; 39: 95-99.
45 Cury RC, Pomerantsev EV, Ferencik M, et al. Comparison of the degree of coronary stenoses by multi-detector computed tomography versus by quantitative coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96: 784-787.