Coronary CT angiography in acute chest pain

Outcomes of Functional Testing Versus Invasive Cardiac Catheterization for the Evaluation of Intermediate Severity Coronary Stenosis Detected on Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of functional testing in comparison to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) among acute chest pain patients whose first diagnostic modality was a coronary computed tomography angiogram (CCTA) and were found to have intermediate coronary stenosis, defined as 50%-70% luminal stenosis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 4763 acute chest pain patients ≥18 years old who received a CCTA as the initial diagnostic modality. Of these, 118 patients met enrollment criteria and proceeded to either stress test (80/118) or directly to ICA (38/118). The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiac event, consisting of acute myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or death.

RESULTS

There was no difference in 30-day major adverse cardiac event among patients who underwent initial stress testing versus directly referred to ICA (0% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.322) following CCTA. The rate of revascularization without acute myocardial infarction was significantly higher among those who underwent ICA versus stress test [36.8% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.0001; adjusted odds ratio: 9.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.8-49.6]. Patients who underwent ICA had a higher rate of catheterization without revascularization within 30 days of the index admission in comparison to those who underwent initial stress testing (55.3% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.0001; adjusted odds ratio: 26.7, 95% confidence interval, 6.6-109.5).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with intermediate coronary stenosis on CCTA, a functional stress test compared with ICA may prevent unnecessary revascularization and improve cardiac catheterization yield without negatively affecting the 30-day patient safety profile.

The Impact of Implementing 24/7 Cardiac CTA Interpretation in the Emergency Department on Patient Care: Retrospective Analysis of a Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to provide insight on the diagnostic validity of cardiac CTA (CCTA) to identify obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and patients who require urgent intervention, compared with those who require same-admission coronary catheterization (CC), and to help elucidate the necessity of a 24/7 CCTA service. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We retrospectively reviewed 658 consecutive CCTA examinations performed of emergency department (ED) patients who presented with acute chest pain from October 1, 2013, to February 28, 2018. Patients were categorized by CAD severity on CCTA. Using same-admission CC as the reference standard, we assessed CCTA's validity to identify obstructive disease using PPV, NPV, sensitivity, and specificity and CCTA's validity to identify patients who require urgent intervention. The added value of the CCTA findings of subendocardial hypoattenuation and wall motion abnormality was evaluated. CCTA examinations were categorized on the basis of the time of day when scanning was performed. RESULTS. The PPV, NPV, and sensitivity of CCTA to diagnose obstructive CAD were 0.87, 0.79, and 0.95, respectively. Nine percent of the scanned patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or were referred for urgent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The presence of obstructive CAD on CCTA has a PPV of 0.73 to identify patients deemed to be at higher acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk to warrant urgent PCI or CABG. Wall motion abnormality increased the PPV to 1.0; subendocardial attenuation increased the PPV to 0.9. The NPV and sensitivity were 0.89 and 0.97, respectively. Of the CCTA examinations, 54% were performed outside regular working hours. Of the patients who received urgent interventions, 62% underwent CCTA examinations performed outside regular working hours. CONCLUSION. CCTA provides high correlation with CC, helps identify individuals with high ACS risk, and is further strengthened by functional analysis; 24/7 CCTA service is warranted.

CT coronary angiography and COVID-19: inpatient use in acute chest pain service

Objectives

CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is a well-validated clinical tool in the evaluation of chest pain. In our institution, CTCA availability was increased in January 2020, and subsequently, expanded further to replace all exercise testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our objective was to assess the impact of increased utilisation of CTCA on length of stay in patients presenting with chest pain in the prepandemic era and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Study design was retrospective. Patients referred for cardiology review between October 2019 and May 2020 with chest pain and/or dyspnoea were broken into three cohorts: a baseline cohort, a cohort with increased CTCA availability and a cohort with increased CTCA availability, but after the national lockdown due to COVID-19. Coronary angiography and revascularisation, length of stay and 30-day adverse outcomes were assessed.

Results

513 patients (35.3% female) presented over cohorts 1 (n=179), 2 (n=182), and 3 (n=153). CTCA use increased from 7.8% overall in cohort 1% to 20.4% in cohort 3. Overall length of stay for the patients undergoing CTCA decreased from a median of 4.2 days in cohort 1 to 2.5 days in cohort 3, with no increase in 30 days adverse outcomes. Invasive coronary angiogram rates were 45.8%, 39% and 34.2% across the cohorts. 29.6% underwent revascularisation in cohort 1, 15.9% in cohort 2 and to 16.4% in cohort 3.

Conclusions

Increased CTCA availability was associated with a significantly reduced length of stay both pre-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 lockdown, without any increase in 30-day adverse outcomes.

The triple rule out CT in acute chest pain: a challenge for emergency radiologists?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of triple rule out computed tomography (TRO-CT) in an emergency radiology workflow by comparing the diagnostic performance of cardiovascular and general radiologists in the interpretation of emergency TRO-CT studies in patients with acute and atypical chest pain.

METHODS

Between July 2017 and December 2019, 350 adult patients underwent TRO-CT studies for the assessment of atypical chest pain. Three radiologists with different fields and years of expertise (a cardioradiologist-CR, an emergency senior radiologist-SER, and an emergency junior radiologist-JER) retrospectively and independently reviewed all TRO-CT studies, by trans-axial and multiplanar reconstruction only. Concordance rates were then calculated using as reference blinded results from a different senior cardioradiologist, who previously evaluated studies using all available analysis software.

RESULTS

Concordance rate was 100% for acute aortic syndrome (AAS) and pulmonary embolism (PE). About coronary stenosis (CS) for non-obstructive (<50%), CS concordance rates were 97.98%, 90.91%, and 97.18%, respectively, for CR, SER, and JER; for obstructive CS (>50%), concordance rates were respectively 88%, 85.7%, and 71.43%. Moreover, it was globally observed a better performance in the evaluation of last half of examinations compared with the first one.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirm the feasibility of the TRO-CT even in an Emergency Radiology department that cannot rely on a 24/7 availability of a dedicated skilled cardiovascular radiologist. The "undedicated" radiologists could exclude with good diagnostic accuracy the presence of obstructive stenosis, those with a clinical impact on patient management, without needing time-consuming software and/or reconstructions.