Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for detecting aorto-ostial lesions compared with catheter coronary angiography: multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography is superior to catheter angiography in detection of aorto-ostial lesions.

PURPOSE: In this study, our goal is to determine the use of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in detection of aorto-ostial lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients suspected to have aorto-ostial lesion by either catheter angiography (CA) or MDCT coronary angiography comprised our study population. In 19 patients (group 1), aorto-ostial lesion was suspected based on CA, then MDCT coronary angiography was performed. In the remaining 14 patients (group 2), aorto-ostial lesion diagnosis was made by MDCT coronary angiography, and then afterward, CA was performed. A cardiologist and a radiologist reevaluated both the CA and MDCT coronary angiography recordings of all patients and their consensus formed the diagnosis. We accepted this consensus diagnosis as our criterion standard because a universal criterion standard to compare CA and MDCT findings with is not available. Then, the previous diagnoses by CA and MDCT coronary angiography were compared with the consensus diagnoses. RESULTS: Finally, 26 patients were diagnosed with aorto-ostial lesion, whereas 5 patients were found not to have aorto-ostial lesions. Two patients were diagnosed with abnormal origination of a coronary artery. When the results were evaluated in terms of the presence of aorto-ostial lesion, MDCT coronary angiography correctly diagnosed all 26 patients, and in the 5 patients with normal ostium, MDCT coronary angiography finding was also normal. However, 7 of 26 patients with aorto-ostial lesion were reported to be normal by CA, and also 5 patients with normal ostia were reported to have aorto-ostial lesion by CA. That is, 12 of 33 patients were misdiagnosed by CA. Moreover, CA missed the abnormal origination of the coronary arteries in 2 patients. When the results were evaluated in terms of the degree of stenosis in 26 patients with aorto-ostial lesion; MDCT coronary angiography predicted the final diagnosis in all 26 patients correctly. However, CA predicted the final degree of stenosis only in 12 patients. Catheter angiography underestimated the degree of the stenosis in 2 patients, overestimated in 5 patients and missed the lesion in 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that MDCT is a reliable tool for diagnosing the presence and severity of aorto-ostial lesions. In addition, MDCT might be useful in preventing the false diagnosis due to the catheter-induced spasms in patients who were diagnosed with aorto-ostial lesion by CA. Moreover, if MDCT coronary angiography detects a lesion in aorto-ostial region, there is no need to perform CA to merely verify this pathology.