SIRM-SIC appropriateness criteria for the use of Cardiac Computed Tomography. Part 1: Congenital heart diseases, primary prevention, risk assessment before surgery, suspected CAD in symptomatic patients, plaque and epicardial adipose tissue characterization, and functional assessment of stenosis.

In the past 20 years, Cardiac Computed Tomography (CCT) has become a pivotal technique for the noninvasive diagnostic work-up of coronary and cardiac diseases. Continuous technical and methodological improvements, combined with fast growing scientific evidence, have progressively expanded the clinical role of CCT. Recent large multicenter randomized clinical trials documented the high prognostic value of CCT and its capability to increase the cost-effectiveness of the management of patients with suspected CAD. In the meantime, CCT, initially perceived as a simple non-invasive technique for studying coronary anatomy, has transformed into a multiparametric "one-stop-shop" approach able to investigate the heart in a comprehensive way, including functional, structural and pathophysiological biomarkers. In this complex and revolutionary scenario, it is urgently needed to provide an updated guide for the appropriate use of CCT in different clinical settings. This manuscript, endorsed by the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM) and by the Italian Society of Cardiology (SIC), represents the first of two consensus documents collecting the expert opinion of Radiologists and Cardiologists about current appropriate use of CCT.

Computed tomography assessment of PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data concerning the optimal ventilator management in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia; particularly, the optimal levels of positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) are unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of two levels of PEEP on alveolar recruitment in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: A single-center cohort study was conducted in a 39-bed intensive care unit at a university-affiliated hospital in Genoa, Italy. Chest computed tomography (CT) was performed to quantify aeration at 8 and 16 cmH2O PEEP. The primary endpoint was the amount of alveolar recruitment, defined as the change in the non-aerated compartment at the two PEEP levels on CT scan. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were included in this analysis. Alveolar recruitment was median [interquartile range] 2.7 [0.7-4.5] % of lung weight and was not associated with excess lung weight, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, respiratory system compliance, inflammatory and thrombophilia markers. Patients in the upper quartile of recruitment (recruiters), compared to non-recruiters, had comparable clinical characteristics, lung weight and gas volume. Alveolar recruitment was not different in patients with lower versus higher respiratory system compliance. In a subgroup of 20 patients with available gas exchange data, increasing PEEP decreased respiratory system compliance (median difference, MD - 9 ml/cmH2O, 95% CI from - 12 to - 6 ml/cmH2O, p < 0.001) and the ventilatory ratio (MD - 0.1, 95% CI from - 0.3 to - 0.1, p = 0.003), increased PaO2 with FiO2 = 0.5 (MD 24 mmHg, 95% CI from 12 to 51 mmHg, p < 0.001), but did not change PaO2 with FiO2 = 1.0 (MD 7 mmHg, 95% CI from - 12 to 49 mmHg, p = 0.313). Moreover, alveolar recruitment was not correlated with improvement of oxygenation or venous admixture. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, higher PEEP resulted in limited alveolar recruitment. These findings suggest limiting PEEP strictly to the values necessary to maintain oxygenation, thus avoiding the use of higher PEEP levels.

Left and right ventricle assessment with Cardiac CT: validation study vs. Cardiac MR.

OBJECTIVES: To compare Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) for the assessment of left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular functional parameters. METHODS: Seventy nine patients underwent both Cardiac CT and Cardiac MR. Images were acquired using short axis (SAX) reconstructions for CT and 2D cine b-SSFP (balanced-steady state free precession) SAX sequence for MR, and evaluated using dedicated software. RESULTS: CT and MR images showed good agreement: LV EF (Ejection Fraction) (52 ± 14% for CT vs. 52 ± 14% for MR; r = 0.73; p > 0.05); RV EF (47 ± 12% for CT vs. 47 ± 12% for MR; r = 0.74; p > 0.05); LV EDV (End Diastolic Volume) (74 ± 21 ml/m² for CT vs. 76 ± 25 ml/m² for MR; r = 0.59; p > 0.05); RV EDV (84 ± 25 ml/m² for CT vs. 80 ± 23 ml/m² for MR; r = 0.58; p > 0.05); LV ESV (End Systolic Volume)(37 ± 19 ml/m² for CT vs. 38 ± 23 ml/m² for MR; r = 0.76; p > 0.05); RV ESV (46 ± 21 ml/m² for CT vs. 43 ± 18 ml/m² for MR; r = 0.70; p > 0.05). Intra- and inter-observer variability were good, and the performance of CT was maintained for different EF subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac CT provides accurate and reproducible LV and RV volume parameters compared with MR, and can be considered as a reliable alternative for patients who are not suitable to undergo MR. KEY POINTS: • Cardiac-CT is able to provide Left and Right Ventricular function. • Cardiac-CT is accurate as MR for LV and RV volume assessment. • Cardiac-CT can provide accurate evaluation of coronary arteries and LV and RV function.

Assessment of coronary artery disease and calcified coronary plaque burden by computed tomography in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

PURPOSE: To compare the coronary atherosclerotic burden in patients with and without type-2 diabetes using CT Coronary Angiography (CTCA). METHODS AND MATERIALS: 147 diabetic (mean age: 65 ± 10 years; male: 89) and 979 nondiabetic patients (mean age: 61 ± 13 years; male: 567) without a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent CTCA. The per-patient number of diseased coronary segments was determined and each diseased segment was classified as showing obstructive lesion (luminal narrowing >50%) or not. Coronary calcium scoring (CCS) was assessed too. RESULTS: Diabetics showed a higher number of diseased segments (4.1 ± 4.2 vs. 2.1 ± 3.0; p < 0.0001); a higher rate of CCS > 400 (p < 0.001), obstructive CAD (37% vs. 18% of patients; p < 0.0001), and fewer normal coronary arteries (20% vs. 42%; p < 0.0001), as compared to nondiabetics. The percentage of patients with obstructive CAD paralleled increasing CCS in both groups. Diabetics with CCS ≤ 10 had a higher prevalence of coronary plaque (39.6% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.003) and obstructive CAD (12.5% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.01). Among patients with CCS ≤ 10 all diabetics with obstructive CAD had a zero CCS and one patient was asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes was associated with higher coronary plaque burden. The present study demonstrates that the absence of coronary calcification does not exclude obstructive CAD especially in diabetics.

Coronary calcium score and computed tomography coronary angiography in high-risk asymptomatic subjects: assessment of diagnostic accuracy and prevalence of non-obstructive coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for the assessment of non-obstructive/obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in high-risk asymptomatic subjects. METHODS: Two hundred and thirteen consecutive asymptomatic subjects (113 male; mean age 53.6 +/- 12.4 years) with more than one risk factor and an inconclusive or unfeasible non-invasive stress test result underwent CACS and CTCA in an outpatient setting. All patients underwent conventional coronary angiography (CAG). Data from CACS (threshold for positive image: Agatston score 1/100/1,000) and CTCA were compared with CAG regarding the degree of CAD (non-obstructive/obstructive; or=50% lumen reduction). RESULTS: The mean calcium score was 151 +/- 403 and the prevalence of obstructive CAD was 17% (8% one-vessel and 10% two-vessel disease). Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CACS were: 97%, 75%, 45%, and 100%, respectively (Agatston >or=1); 73%, 90%, 60%, and 94%, respectively (Agatston >or=100); 30%, 98%, 79%, and 87%, respectively (Agatston >or=1,000). Per-patient values for CTCA were 100%, 98%, 97%, and 100%, respectively (p < 0.05). CTCA detected 65% prevalence of all CAD (48% non-obstructive), while CACS detected 37% prevalence of all CAD (21% non-obstructive) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: CACS proved inadequate for the detection of obstructive and non-obstructive CAD compared with CTCA. CTCA has a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of non-obstructive and obstructive CAD in high-risk asymptomatic patients with inconclusive or unfeasible stress test results.