How to Reduce Unnecessary Invasive Angiograms When Patients Are Initially Evaluated by Coronary Computed Tomography?

DOI: 10.4236/act.2013.21003   PDF   HTML     3,740 Downloads   7,609 Views  


Purpose:When Coronary Computed Tomography (CCT) detects coronary obstruction, patients are regularly referred to invasive angiogram. With higher sensitivity than specificity, CCT might induce unnecessary angiograms (“false positive CCT”). We sought to determine the patients and CCT findings associated with false positive CCT. Methods: Patients were prospectively referred to CCT with a 64-slice CT scan for suspected CAD. Inclusion criteria were: 1) clinically suspected angina pectoris; or 2) suspected silent ischemia on resting EKG. Exclusion criteria were acute coronary syndrome and non sinus rhythm. Invasive coronary angiogram (ICA) was performed on the basis of CCT findings (stenosis >50%). Analysis was performed on a per patient basis. Results: Out of 702 patients, 228 had suspected significant stenosis by CCT and ICA was performed in 176 patients. Coronary stenosis >50% was not confirmed by ICA in 44 (25%). In multivariate analysis, we observed that atypical angina (OR 3.63,CI 1.43-9.66), silent ischemia (OR 5.11, CI 1.89-14.6) and number of suspected stenosed arteries by CCT (OR 1.81, CI 1.15-2.94) were independently predictive of false positive CCT (p < 0.05). Lesion location and coronary plaque characteristics did not impact on CCT accuracy. Conclusions:Performing CCT for atypical angina or silent ischemia is associated with higher rate of unnecessary invasive coronary angiograms. We failed to identify lesions characteristics prone to be “false positive” of CCT.

Share and Cite:

Cheneau, E., Vahda, B., Resseguier, N., Bernard, L., Molon, A., Giorgi, R. and Panagides, D. (2013) How to Reduce Unnecessary Invasive Angiograms When Patients Are Initially Evaluated by Coronary Computed Tomography?. Advances in Computed Tomography, 2, 13-19. doi: 10.4236/act.2013.21003.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] M. Henneman, J. D. Schuijf, J. M. van Werkhoven, G. Pundziute, E. E. van der Wall, J. W. Jukema and J. J. Bax “Multi-Slice Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Ruling Out Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: What Is the Prevalence of a Normal Study in a General Clinical Population?” European Heart Journal, Vol. 29, No. 16, 2008, pp. 2006-2013. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn284
[2] L. H. Piers, R. Dikkers, T. P. Willems, B. de Smet, M. Oudkerk, F. Zijlstra and R. A. Tio, “Computed Tomographic Angiography or Conventional Coronary Angiography in Therapeutic Decision-Making,” European Heart Journal, Vol. 29, No. 23, 2008, pp. 2902-2907. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn454
[3] W. B. Meijboom, M. F. Meijs, J. D. Schuijf, M. J. Cramer, N. R. Mollet, C. A. van Mieghem, K. Nieman, J. M. van Werkhoven, G. Pundziute, A. C. Weustink, A. M. de Vos, F. Pugliese, B. Rensing, a J. W. Jukem, J. J. Bax, M. Prokop, P. A. Doevendans, M. G. Hunink, G. P. Krestin and P. J. de Feyter, “Diagnostic Accuracy of 64-Slice Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography: A Prospective, Multicenter, Multivendor Study,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 52, No. 25, 2008, pp. 2135-2144. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.058
[4] M. W. von Ballmoos, B. Haring, P. Juillerat and H. Alkadhi, “Meta-Analysis: Diagnostic Performance of Low-Radiation-Dose Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography,” Annals of International Medicine, Vol. 154, No. 6, 2011, pp. 413-420.
[5] A. J. Taylor, M. Cerqueira, J. M. Hodgson, D. Mark, J. Min, P. O’Gara and G. D. Rubin, “Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance,” Circulation, Vol. 122, 2010, pp. e525-e555. doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181fcae66
[6] W. B. Meijboom, C. van Mieghem, N. R. Mollet, F. Pugliese, A. C. Weustink, N. van Pelt, F. Cademartiri, K. Nieman, E. Boersma, P. de Jaegere, G. P. Krestin and P. J. de Feyter, “64-Slice Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography in Patients with High, Intermediate, or Low Pretest Probability of Significant Coronary Artery Disease,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 50, No. 15, 2007, pp. 1469-1475. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.007
[7] D. B. Pryor, L. Shaw, C. B. McCants, K. L. Lee, D. B. Mark, F. E. Harrell Jr., L. H. Muhlbaier and R. M. Califf, “Value of the History and Physical in Identifying Patients at Increased Risk for Coronary Artery Disease,” Annals of International Medicine, Vol. 118, No. 2, 1993, pp. 81-90.
[8] M. R. Patel, E. D. Peterson, D. Dai, J. M. Brennan, R. F. Redberg, H. V. Anderson, R. G. Brindis and P. S. Douglas, “Low Diagnostic Yield of Elective Coronary Angiography,”New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 362, No. 5, 2010, pp. 886-895. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0907272
[9] C. M. Taylor, K. H. Humphries, A. Pu, W. Ghali, M. Gao, M. Knudtson, U. Hoffmann, R. G. Carere, “A Proposed Clinical Model for Efficient Utilization of Invasive Coronary Angiography,”American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 106, No. 4, 2010, pp. 457-462. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.03.061
[10] M. Hamon, R. Morello, J. W. Riddell and M. Hamon, “Coronary Arteries: Diagnostic Performance of 16-versus 64-Section Spiral CT Compared with Invasive Coronary Angiography-Meta-Analysis,” Radiology, Vol. 245, No. 3, 2007, pp. 720-731. doi:10.1148/radiol.2453061899
[11] M. J. Budoff, D. Dowe, J. G. Jollis, M. Gitter, J. Sutherland, E. Halamert, M. Scherer, R. Bellinger, A. Martin, R. Benton, A. Delago, J. K. Min, “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,”Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 52, No. 21, 2008, pp. 1724-1732. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.031
[12] J. M. Miller, C. E. Rochitte, M. Dewey, A. Arbab-Zadeh, H. Niinuma, I. Gottlieb, N. Paul, M. E. Clouse, E. P. Shapiro, J. Hoe, A. C. Lardo, D. E. Bush, A. de Roos, C. Cox, J. Brinker and J. A. Lima, “Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Angiography by 64-Row CT,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 359, No. 22, 2008, pp. 2324-2336. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0806576
[13] B. J. Chow, A. Abraham, G. A. Wells, L. Chen, T. D. Ruddy, Y. Yam, N. Govas, P. D. Galbraith, C. Dennie and R. S. Beanlands, “Diagnostic Accuracy and Impact of Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography on Utilization of Invasive Coronary Angiography,” Circ Cardiovasc Imaging, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2009, pp. 16-23. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.108.792572
[14] J. Hausleiter, T. Meyer, M. Hadamitzky, M. Zankl, P. Gerein, K. D?rrler, A. Kastrati, S. Martinoff and A. Sch?mig, “Non-Invasive Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The Coronary Angiography by Computed Tomography with the Use of a Submillimeter Resolution (Cactus) Trial,” European Heart Journal, Vol. 28, No. 24, 2007, pp. 3034-3041
[15] W. B. Meijboom, A. C. Weustink, F. Pugliese, C. A. van Mieghem, N. R. Mollet, N. van Pelt, F. Cademartiri, K. Nieman, E. Vourvouri, E. Regar, G. P. Krestin, P. J. de Feyter, “Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of 64-Slice Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography in Women versus Men with Angina Pectoris,” American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 100, No. 10, 2007, pp. 1532-1537. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.06.061
[16] J. H. Mieres, L. J. Shaw, A. Arai, M. J. Budoff, S. D. Flamm, W. G. Hundley, T. H. Marwick, L. Mosca, A. R. Patel, M. A. Quinones, R. F. Redberg, K. A. Taubert, A. J. Taylor, G. S. Thomas and N. K. Wenger, “Role of Noninvasive Testing in the Clinical Evaluation of Women with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Consensus Statement from the Cardiac Imaging Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, American Heart Association,” Circulation, Vol. 111, No. 5, 2005, pp. 682-696. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000155233.67287.60
[17] M. Dewey, A. L. Vavere, A. Arbab-Zadeh, J. M. Miller, L. Sara, C. Cox, I. Gottlieb, K. Yoshioka, N. Paul, J. Hoe, A. de Roos, A. C. Lardo, J. A. Lima, M. E. Clouse, “Patient Characteristics as Predictors of Image Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy of MDCT Compared with Conventional Coronary Angiography for Detecting Coronary Artery Stenoses: CORE-64 Multicenter International Trial,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 194, No. 1, 2010, pp. 93-102. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2833
[18] P. D. Stein, A. Y. Yaekoub, F. Matta and H. D. Sostman, “64-Slice CT for Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review,” American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 121, No. 8, 2008, pp. 715-725. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.02.039
[19] G. L. Raff, M. J. Gallagher, W. W. O’Neill, J. A. Goldstein, “Diagnostic Accuracy of Noninvasive Coronary Angiography Using 64-Slice Spiral Computed Tomography,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2005, pp. 552-557. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.056
[20] H. Brodoefel, C. Burgstahler, I. Tsiflikas, A. Reimann, S. Schroeder, C. D. Claussen, M. Heuschmid and A. F. Kopp, “Dual-Source CT: Effect of Heart Rate, Heart Rate Variability, and Calcification on Image Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy,” Radiology, Vol. 247, No. 2, 2008, pp. 346-355. doi:10.1148/radiol.2472070906
[21] S. Leschka, S. Wildermuth, T. Boehm, L. Desbiolles, L. Husmann, A. Plass, P. Koepfli, T. Schepis, B. Marincek, P. A. Kaufmann and H. Alkadhi, “Noninvasive Coronary Angiography with 64-Section CT: Effect of Average Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability on Image Quality,” Radiology, Vol. 241, No. 2, 2006, pp. 378-385. doi:10.1148/radiol.2412051384
[22] H. Gouya, O. Varenne, L. Trinquart, E. Touzé, O. Vignaux, C. Spaulding, J. L. Mas and J. L. Sablayrolles Coronary Artery Stenosis in High-Risk Patients: 64-Section CT and Coronary Angiography—Prospective Study and Analysis of Discordance,” Radiology, Vol. 252, No. 2, 2009, pp. 377-385. doi:10.1148/radiol.2522081271
[23] B. M. Wertman, V. Y. Cheng, S. Kar, H. Gransar, R. A. Berg, H. Naik, R. Makkar, J. Friedman, J. Schapira and D. Berman, “Characterization of Complex Coronary Artery Stenosis Morphology by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography,” JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, Vol. 2, No. 8, 2009, pp. 950-958. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2008.12.032
[24] S. Busch, T. R. Johnson, K. Nikolaou, F. von Ziegler, A. Knez, M. F. Reiser and C. R. Becker, “Visual and Automatic Grading of Coronary Artery Stenoses with 64-Slice CT Angiography in Reference to Invasive Angiography,” European Radiology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2007, pp. 1445-1451. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0512-y
[25] M. J. Boogers, J. D. Schuijf, P. H. Kitslaar, J. M. van Werkhoven, F. R. de Graaf, E. Boersma, J. E. van Velzen, J. Dijkstra, I. M. Adame, L. J. Kroft, A. de Roos, J. H. Schreur, M. W. Heijenbrok, J. W. Jukema, J. H. Reiber and J. J. Bax, “Automated Quantification of Stenosis Severity on 64-Slice CT: A Comparison with Quantitative Coronary Angiography,” JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, Vol. 3, No. 7, 2010, pp. 699-709. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2010.01.010
[26] E. Cheneau, B. Vahdat, L. Bernard, A. Molon, D. Panagides, “Routine Use of Coronary Computed Tomography as Initial Diagnostic Test for Angina Pectoris,” Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases, Vol. 104, No. 1, 2011, pp. 29-34. doi:10.1016/j.acvd.2010.11.007

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.