Diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease using computed tomography angiography in patients with stable chest pain depending on clinical probability and in clinically important subgroups: meta-analysis of individual patient data.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) should be performed in patients with any clinical probability of coronary artery disease (CAD), and whether the diagnostic performance differs between subgroups of patients. DESIGN: Prospectively designed meta-analysis of individual patient data from prospective diagnostic accuracy studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for published studies. Unpublished studies were identified via direct contact with participating investigators. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Prospective diagnostic accuracy studies that compared coronary CTA with coronary angiography as the reference standard, using at least a 50% diameter reduction as a cutoff value for obstructive CAD. All patients needed to have a clinical indication for coronary angiography due to suspected CAD, and both tests had to be performed in all patients. Results had to be provided using 2×2 or 3×2 cross tabulations for the comparison of CTA with coronary angiography. Primary outcomes were the positive and negative predictive values of CTA as a function of clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD, analysed by a generalised linear mixed model; calculations were performed including and excluding non-diagnostic CTA results. The no-treat/treat threshold model was used to determine the range of appropriate pretest probabilities for CTA. The threshold model was based on obtained post-test probabilities of less than 15% in case of negative CTA and above 50% in case of positive CTA. Sex, angina pectoris type, age, and number of computed tomography detector rows were used as clinical variables to analyse the diagnostic performance in relevant subgroups. RESULTS: Individual patient data from 5332 patients from 65 prospective diagnostic accuracy studies were retrieved. For a pretest probability range of 7-67%, the treat threshold of more than 50% and the no-treat threshold of less than 15% post-test probability were obtained using CTA. At a pretest probability of 7%, the positive predictive value of CTA was 50.9% (95% confidence interval 43.3% to 57.7%) and the negative predictive value of CTA was 97.8% (96.4% to 98.7%); corresponding values at a pretest probability of 67% were 82.7% (78.3% to 86.2%) and 85.0% (80.2% to 88.9%), respectively. The overall sensitivity of CTA was 95.2% (92.6% to 96.9%) and the specificity was 79.2% (74.9% to 82.9%). CTA using more than 64 detector rows was associated with a higher empirical sensitivity than CTA using up to 64 rows (93.4% v 86.5%, P=0.002) and specificity (84.4% v 72.6%, P<0.001). The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for CTA was 0.897 (0.889 to 0.906), and the diagnostic performance of CTA was slightly lower in women than in with men (area under the curve 0.874 (0.858 to 0.890) v 0.907 (0.897 to 0.916), P<0.001). The diagnostic performance of CTA was slightly lower in patients older than 75 (0.864 (0.834 to 0.894), P=0.018 v all other age groups) and was not significantly influenced by angina pectoris type (typical angina 0.895 (0.873 to 0.917), atypical angina 0.898 (0.884 to 0.913), non-anginal chest pain 0.884 (0.870 to 0.899), other chest discomfort 0.915 (0.897 to 0.934)). CONCLUSIONS: In a no-treat/treat threshold model, the diagnosis of obstructive CAD using coronary CTA in patients with stable chest pain was most accurate when the clinical pretest probability was between 7% and 67%. Performance of CTA was not influenced by the angina pectoris type and was slightly higher in men and lower in older patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012002780.

A low-dose and an ultra-low-dose contrast agent protocol for coronary CT angiography in a clinical setting: quantitative and qualitative comparison to a standard dose protocol.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a low-dose (LD) and an ultra-LD (ULD) contrast protocol for coronary CT angiography on qualitative and quantitative image parameters in a clinical setting. METHODS: We scanned 120 consecutive patients with a 256-slice CT scanner applying a LD (60 patients, 35-55 ml) or ULD (60 patients, 25-45 ml) contrast protocol adapted to the body mass index. Visually assessed image quality and attenuation measured in each coronary segment were retrospectively compared in 20 consecutive patients scanned with a normal-dose (ND, 40-105 ml) contrast protocol. RESULTS: Visually assessed image quality did not differ significantly among protocols. By contrast, attenuation obtained from the ULD protocol (median contrast volume 35 ml) differed significantly from the LD (median 45 ml) and ND (median 70 ml) protocols in the coronary segments (316 ± 52 vs 363 ± 60 and 359 ± 52 HU, p < 0.001). Attenuation did not differ significantly between the LD and ND protocol. The proportion of patients with inadequate coronary vessel attenuation was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the ULD protocol (37%) than in the ND (5%) and LD (10%) protocols but did not differ significantly between the ND and LD protocols. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, a LD contrast protocol with a median volume of 45 ml is feasible for the latest generation 256-slice coronary CT angiography as it yields attenuation comparable to a ND protocol. By contrast, the implementation of an ULD protocol remains challenging. Advances in knowledge: Although not perceived by the naked eye, an ULD contrast protocol in a clinical setting yields attenuation below a threshold for diagnostic image quality.

Minimized Radiation and Contrast Agent Exposure for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: First Clinical Experience on a Latest Generation 256-slice Scanner.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of the latest coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) techniques allowing a radiation- and contrast-sparing protocol on image quality in unselected patients referred for exclusion of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the local ethics committee, and all patients provided written informed consent. Between March and June 2015, 89 consecutive patients (61% male; mean age 55 ± 11 years) referred for exclusion of CAD by 256-slice CCTA using prospective electrocardiogram triggering were included. Tube voltage (80-120 kVp), tube current (180-310 mA) as well contrast agent volume (25-45 mL) and flow rate (3.5-5 mL/s) were adapted to body mass index. Signal intensity was measured by placing a region of interest in the aortic root, the left main artery, and the proximal right coronary artery. Image noise was measured in the aortic root. Two independent blinded readers semi-quantitatively assessed the image quality regarding motion, noise, and contrast on a 4-point scale. RESULTS: Median contrast agent volume and median effective radiation dose were 35 mL (interquartile range, 30-40 mL) and 0.5 mSv (interquartile range, 0.4-0.6 mSv), respectively. Mean attenuation in the aortic root was 412 ± 89 Hounsfield units. Diagnostic image quality was obtained in 1050 of 1067 (98.4%) coronary segments and, on an intention-to-diagnosis basis, in 85 of 89 (95.5%) patients. Below a cut-off heart rate of 67 beats/min, only 1 of 974 (0.1%) coronary segments was nondiagnostic. CONCLUSION: A radiation- and contrast-sparing protocol for CCTA on a latest generation 256-slice computed tomography scanner yields diagnostic image quality in patients referred for CAD exclusion in daily clinical routine.