Efficacy of dual-source CT coronary angiography in evaluating coronary stenosis: initial experience

Dose levels and image quality of second-generation 128-slice dual-source coronary CT angiography in clinical routine

OBJECTIVES

To compare radiation exposure and image quality of second-generation 128-slice dual-source CT (DSCT) coronary angiography (cCTA) protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from four groups with 25 patients, each examined by one of the following DSCT cCTA protocols: prospectively ECG-gated high-pitch (group 1) or sequential (group 2) acquisition, retrospectively ECG-gated acquisition in dual-energy (DECT, group 3) or dual-source (group 4) mode. CT dose index volume, dose length product, estimated radiation dose, contrast-to-noise- and signal-to-noise-ratios were compared. Subjective image quality was rated by two observers blinded to the protocols.

RESULTS

High-pitch DSCT showed a mean estimated radiation dose of 1.27 ± 0.62 mSv, significantly (p < 0.01) lower than sequential (2.04 ± 0.94 mSv), dual-energy (3.97 ± 1.29 mSv) or dual-source (8.11 ± 4.95 mSv) acquisition. Image noise showed no statistical difference (p > 0.91), ranging from 15.2 ± 4.4 (group 2) up to 24.5 ± 22.0 (group 4). Each protocol showed diagnostic image quality in at least 98.1 % of evaluated coronary segments without significant differences (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Prospectively ECG-gated DSCT protocols enable cCTA with significant dose reduction and consistently diagnostic image quality. In patients requiring retrospectively ECG-gated DSCT for functional analysis or due to arrhythmia, dual-energy mode should be preferred over dual-source mode as it significantly decreases estimated dose without compromising image quality.

Dual-source CT versus single-source 64-section CT angiography for coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of single-source 64-section computed tomography (CT) versus dual-source CT angiography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for relevant original papers. Inclusion criteria were (1) significant CAD defined as ≥50% reduction in luminal diameter by invasive coronary angiography as reference standard; (2) single-source 64-section CT or dual-source CT was used; (3) results were reported in absolute numbers of true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative results or sufficiently detailed data for deriving these numbers were presented. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-one papers including 3966 patients who underwent single-source 64-section CT and 2047 patients who underwent dual-source CT at a per-patient level were pooled. The diagnostic values of single-source 64-section CT versus dual-source CT were 97% versus 97% for sensitivity (p = 0.386), 78% versus 86% for specificity (p < 0.001), 90% versus 85% for positive predictive value (PPV; p < 0.001), 93% versus 97% for negative predictive value (NPV; p = 0.001), 6.8 versus 6.5 for positive likelihood ratio (p = 0.018), 0.04 versus 0.04 for negative likelihood ratio (p = 0.625), and 191.59 versus 207.37 for diagnostic odds ratio (p = 0.043), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Dual-source CT and single-source 64-section CT have similar negative likelihood ratios and, therefore, there was no significant difference in their utility to rule out CAD in intermediate-risk patients. However, compared to single-source 64-section CT, dual-source CT has significantly higher specificity, so that CT-based decisions for subsequent coronary catheter angiography are more accurate.

The diagnostic performance of coronary artery angiography with 64-MSCT and post 64-MSCT: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To comprehensively investigate the diagnostic performance of coronary artery angiography with 64-MDCT and post 64-MDCT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was searched for all published studies that evaluated coronary arteries with 64-MDCT and post 64-MDCT. The clinical diagnostic role was evaluated by applying the likelihood ratios (LRs) to calculate the post-test probability based on Bayes' theorem.

RESULTS

91 studies that met our inclusion criteria were ultimately included in the analysis. The pooled positive and negative LRs at patient level were 8.91 (95% CI, 7.53, 10.54) and 0.02 (CI, 0.01, 0.03), respectively. For studies that did not claim that non-evaluable segments were included, the pooled positive and negative LRs were 11.16 (CI, 8.90, 14.00) and 0.01 (CI, 0.01, 0.03), respectively. For studies including uninterruptable results, the diagnostic performance decreased, with the pooled positive LR 7.40 (CI, 6.00, 9.13) and negative LR 0.02 (CI, 0.01, 0.03). The areas under the summary ROC curve were 0.98 (CI, 0.97 to 0.99) for 64-MDCT and 0.96 (CI, 0.94 to 0.98) for post 64-MDCT, respectively. For references explicitly stating that the non-assessable segments were included during analysis, a post-test probability of negative results >95% and a positive post-test probability <95% could be obtained for patients with a pre-test probability of <73% for coronary artery disease (CAD). On the other hand, when the pre-test probability of CAD was >73%, the diagnostic role was reversed, with a positive post-test probability of CAD >95% and a negative post-test probability of CAD <95%.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of post 64-MDCT does not increase as compared with 64-MDCT. CTA, overall, is a test of exclusion for patients with a pre-test probability of CAD<73%, while for patients with a pre-test probability of CAD>73%, CTA is a test used to confirm the presence of CAD.

Diagnostic performance of dual-source CT coronary angiography with and without heart rate control: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) coronary angiography with and without the application of a β-blocker.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An exact binomial rendition of the bivariate mixed-effects regression model was used to synthesize diagnostic test data.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity at the patient level was 0.98 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.97-0.99], and specificity 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.91). The results showed that without heart rate control, the sensitivity and specificity at the patient level did not decrease (p = 0.27 and 0.56, respectively). At the artery level, no significant differences in sensitivity and specificity for studies with and without heart rate control were detected (p = 0.04 and 0.05, respectively). At the segment level, the specificity decreased without heart rate control (p = 0.03), whereas the sensitivity was not influenced (p = 0.63). The median radiation exposure was 2.6 mSv, with 1.6 mSv and 8 mSv for heart rate-controlled studies and uncontrolled studies, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

DSCT coronary angiography without heart rate control has a similar excellent diagnostic performance at the patient level as that of heart rate control groups. However, controlling for heart rate to decrease radiation and to provide effective information for selecting the therapeutic strategy and risk stratification is recommended.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of new-generation computed tomography scanners for imaging in coronary artery disease and congenital heart disease: Somatom Definition Flash, Aquilion ONE, Brilliance iCT and Discovery CT750 HD

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) is important in diagnosing and managing many conditions, including coronary artery disease (CAD) and congenital heart disease. Current CT scanners can very accurately diagnose CAD requiring revascularisation in most patients. However, imaging technologies have developed rapidly and new-generation computed tomography (NGCCT) scanners may benefit patients who are difficult to image (e.g. obese patients, patients with high or irregular heart beats and patients who have high levels of coronary calcium or a previous stent or bypass graft).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for diagnosing clinically significant CAD in patients who are difficult to image using 64-slice computed tomography and treatment planning in complex congenital heart disease.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic databases were searched from 2000 to February/March 2011, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database and Science Citation Index (SCI). Trial registers and conference proceedings were searched.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review methods followed published guidance. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Results were stratified by patient group. Summary sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate summary receiver operating characteristic, or random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-squared statistic and I(2)-statistic. Cost-effectiveness of NGCCT was modelled separately for suspected and known CAD, evaluating invasive coronary angiography (ICA) only, ICA after positive NGCCT (NGCCT-ICA), and NGCCT only. The cost-effectiveness of NGCCT, compared with 64-slice CT, in reducing imaging-associated radiation in congenital heart disease was assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies reported accuracy of NGCCT for diagnosing CAD in difficult-to-image patients. No clinical effectiveness studies of NGCCT in congenital heart disease were identified. The pooled per-patient estimates of sensitivity were 97.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.0% to 99.9%], 97.7% (95% CI 93.2% to 99.3%) and 96.0% (95% CI 88.8% to 99.2%) for patients with arrhythmias, high heart rates and previous stent, respectively. The corresponding estimates of specificity were 81.7% (95% CI 71.6% to 89.4%), 86.3% (95% CI 80.2% to 90.7%) and 81.6% (95% CI 74.7% to 87.3%), respectively. In patients with high coronary calcium scores, previous bypass grafts or obesity, only per-segment or per-artery data were available. Sensitivity estimates remained high (> 90% in all but one study). In patients with suspected CAD, the NGCCT-only strategy appeared most cost-effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NGCCT-ICA compared with NGCCT only was £71,000. In patients with known CAD, the most cost-effective strategy was NGCCT-ICA (highest cost saving, dominates ICA only). The ICER of NGCCT only compared with NGCCT-ICA was £726,230. For radiation exposure only, the ICER for NGCCT compared with 64-slice CT in congenital heart disease ranged from £521,000 for the youngest patients to £90,000 for adults.

LIMITATIONS

Available data were limited, particularly for obese patients and patients with previous bypass grafts. All studies of the accuracy of NGCCT assume that the reference standard (ICA) is 100% sensitive and specific; however, there is some evidence that ICA may sometimes underestimate the extent and severity of stenosis. Patients with more than one criterion that could contribute to difficulty in imaging were often excluded from studies; the effect on test accuracy of multiple difficult to image criteria remains uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

NGCCT may be sufficiently accurate to diagnose clinically significant CAD in some or all difficult-to-image patient groups. Economic analyses suggest that NGCCT is likely to be considered cost-effective for difficult-to-image patients with CAD, at current levels of willingness to pay in the NHS. For patients with suspected CAD, NGCCT only would be most favourable; for patients with known CAD, NGCCT-ICA would be most favourable. No studies assessing the effects of NGCCT on therapeutic decision making, or subsequent patient outcomes, were identified. The ideal study to address these questions would be a large multi-centre RCT. However, one possible alternative might be to establish a multicentre tracker study. High-quality test accuracy studies, particularly in obese patients, patients with high coronary calcium, and those with previous bypass grafts are needed to confirm the findings of our systematic review. These studies should include patients with multiple difficult to image criteria.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. This project was funded by the HTA programme, on behalf of NICE, as project number 10/107/01.

Systematic review of the accuracy of dual-source cardiac CT for detection of arterial stenosis in difficult to image patient groups

PURPOSE

To assess the diagnostic performance of dual-source cardiac (DSC) computed tomography (CT) newer-generation CT instruments for identifying anatomically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients who are difficult to image by using 64-section CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search comprised bibliographic databases (January 1, 2000, to March 22, 2011, with a pragmatic update on September 6, 2012), trial registries, and conference proceedings. Only studies using invasive coronary angiography as reference standard were included. Risk of bias was assessed (QUADAS-2). Results were stratified according to patient group on the basis of clinical characteristics. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity of DSC CT for detecting 50% or greater arterial stenosis were calculated by using a bivariate summary receiver operating characteristic or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies reported accuracy of DSC CT for diagnosing CAD in difficult to image patients; in 22 studies, one of two CT units of the same manufacturer (Somatom Definition or Somatom Definition Flash) was used, and in the remaining three, a different CT unit of another manufacturer (Aquilion One) was used. The pooled, per-patient estimates of sensitivity were 97.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.0%, 99.9%) and 97.7% (95% CI: 93.2%, 99.3%) for patients with arrhythmias and high heart rates, respectively. The corresponding pooled estimates of specificity were 81.7% (95% CI: 71.6%, 89.4%) and 86.3% (95% CI: 80.2%, 90.7%), respectively. All data were acquired by using Somatom Definition. In two studies with Somatom and one study with Aquilion One, sensitivity estimates of 90% or greater were reported in patients with previous stent implantations; specificities were 81.7% and 89.5% for Somatom and 81.0% for Aquilion One. In patients with high coronary calcium scores, previous bypass grafts, or obesity, only per-segment or per-artery data were available. Sensitivity estimates remained high (>90% in all but one study), and specificities ranged from 79.1% to 100%. All data were acquired by using Somatom Definition.

CONCLUSION

DSC CT may be sufficiently accurate to diagnose clinically significant CAD in some or all difficult to image patients.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13121136/-/DC1.

Dual-source computed tomography angiography for diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Development of an accurate test for noninvasive assessment of coronary arteries has been highly desirable.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy of the dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

Eight medical databases were searched for articles published from January 2005 through March 2011. Studies compared DSCT coronary angiography (DSCT-CA) and invasive coronary angiography, as the reference standard, in consecutive patients with suspected or known CAD, and relevant data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Summary diagnostic accuracies were calculated, and the effect of covariates on the diagnostic performance was evaluated by meta-regression.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included. In per-patient analysis (n = 2303), pooled sensitivity was 99% [95% confidence interval (CI), 97%-99%] with specificity of 89% (95% CI, 84%-92%). The summary positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios were 8.6 (95% CI, 6.4-11.6) and 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03), respectively. In per-segment analysis (n = 32,615), pooled sensitivity was 94% (95% CI, 92%-96%) with specificity of 97% (95% CI, 96%--98%). Summary +LR and -LR were 30.2 (95% CI, 22.1-43.5) and 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

DSCT-CA seems to be robust to elevate heart rates while maintaining a high level of diagnostic performance.