CAR and CSTR Cardiac Computed Tomography (CT) Practice Guidelines: Part 2-Non-Coronary Imaging.

The cardiac computed tomography (CT) practice guidelines provide an updated review of the technological improvements since the publication of the first Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) cardiac CT practice guidelines in 2009. An overview of the current evidence supporting the use of cardiac CT in the most common clinical scenarios, standards of practice to optimize patient preparation and safety as well as image quality are described. Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is the focus of Part I. In Part II, an overview of cardiac CT for non-coronary indications that include valvular and pericardial imaging, tumour and mass evaluation, pulmonary vein imaging, and imaging of congenital heart disease for diagnosis and treatment monitoring are discussed. The guidelines are intended to be relevant for community hospitals and large academic centres with established cardiac CT imaging programs.

CAR and CSTR Cardiac Computed Tomography (CT) Practice Guidelines: Part 1 Coronary CT Angiography (CCTA).

Imaging the heart is one of the most technically challenging applications of Computed Tomography (CT) due to the presence of cardiac motion limiting optimal visualization of small structures such as the coronary arteries. Electrocardiographic gating during CT data acquisition facilitates motion free imaging of the coronary arteries. Since publishing the first version of the Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) cardiac CT guidelines, many technological advances in CT hardware and software have emerged necessitating an update. The goal of these cardiac CT practice guidelines is to present an overview of the current evidence supporting the use of cardiac CT in various clinical scenarios and to outline standards of practice for patient safety and quality of care when establishing a cardiac CT program in Canada.

Recommendations to Improve Management of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules in Canada: Expert Panel Consensus.

Introduction: Incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN) are common radiologic findings, yet management of IPNs is inconsistent across Canada. This study aims to improve IPN management based on multidisciplinary expert consensus and provides recommendations to overcome patient and system-level barriers. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus technique was conducted. Multidisciplinary experts with extensive experience in lung nodule management in Canada were recruited to participate in the panel. A survey was administered in 3 rounds, using a 5-point Likert scale to determine the level of agreement (1 = extremely agree, 5 = extremely disagree). Results: Eleven experts agreed to participate in the panel; 10 completed all 3 rounds. Consensus was achieved for 183/217 (84.3%) statements. Panellists agreed that radiology reports should include a standardized summary of findings and follow-up recommendations for all nodule sizes (ie, <6, 6-8, and >8 mm). There was strong consensus regarding the importance of an automated system for patient follow-up and that leadership support for organizational change at the administrative level is of utmost importance in improving IPN management. There was no consensus on the need for standardized national referral pathways, development of new guidelines, or establishing a uniform picture archiving and communication system. Conclusion: Canadian IPN experts agree that improved IPN management should include standardized radiology reporting of IPNs, standardized and automated follow-up of patients with IPNs, guideline adherence and implementation, and leadership support for organizational change. Future research should focus on the implementation and long-term effectiveness of these recommendations in clinical practice.

Risk for Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Subsegmental Pulmonary Embolism Managed Without Anticoagulation : A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of pulmonary embolism has been increasing, but its case-fatality rate is decreasing, suggesting a lesser severity of illness. The clinical importance of patients with pulmonary embolism isolated to the subsegmental vessels is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism managed without anticoagulation. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01455818). SETTING: Eighteen sites between February 2011 and February 2021. PATIENTS: Patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism. INTERVENTION: At diagnosis, patients underwent bilateral lower-extremity venous ultrasonography, which was repeated 1 week later if results were negative. Patients without deep venous thrombosis did not receive anticoagulant therapy. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was recurrent venous thromboembolism during the 90-day follow-up period. RESULTS: Recruitment was stopped prematurely because the predefined stopping rule was met after 292 of a projected 300 patients were enrolled. Of the 266 patients included in the primary analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 8 patients, for a cumulative incidence of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.6% to 6.1%) over the 90-day follow-up. The incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism was 2.1% (CI, 0.8% to 5.5%) and 5.7% (CI, 2.2% to 14.4%) over the 90-day follow-up in patients with single and multiple isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism, respectively. No patients had a fatal recurrent pulmonary embolism. LIMITATION: The study was restricted to patients with low-risk subsegmental pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism who did not have proximal deep venous thrombosis had a higher-than-expected rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and French Ministry of Health Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.

Canadian Association of Radiologists/Canadian Association for Interventional Radiology/Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology Guidelines on Thoracic Interventions.

Thoracic interventions are frequently performed by radiologists, but guidelines on appropriateness criteria and technical considerations to ensure patient safety regarding such interventions is lacking. These guidelines, developed by the Canadian Association of Radiologists, Canadian Association for Interventional Radiology and Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology focus on the interventions commonly performed by thoracic radiologists. They provide evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus informed best practices for patient preparation; biopsies of the lung, mediastinum, pleura and chest wall; thoracentesis; pre-operative lung nodule localization; and potential complications and their management.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology/Canadian Association of Radiologists Best Practice Guidance for Investigation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism, Part 1: Acquisition and Safety Considerations.

Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a well-recognized cause of circulatory system compromise and even demise which can frequently present a diagnostic challenge for the physician. The diagnostic challenge is primarily due to the frequency of indeterminate presentations as well as several other conditions which can have a similar clinical presentation. This often obliges the physician to establish a firm diagnosis due to the potentially serious outcomes related to this disease. Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) has increasingly cemented its role as the primary investigation tool in this clinical context and is widely accepted as the standard of care due to several desired attributes which include great accuracy, accessibility, rapid turn-around time and the ability to suggest an alternate diagnosis when APE is not the culprit. In Part 1 of this guidance document, a series of up-to-date recommendations are provided to the reader pertaining to CTPA protocol optimization (including scan range, radiation and intravenous contrast dose), safety measures including the departure from breast and gonadal shielding, population-specific scenarios (pregnancy and early post-partum) and consideration of alternate diagnostic techniques when clinically deemed appropriate.

Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology/Canadian Association of Radiologists Best Practice Guidance for Investigation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism, Part 2: Technical Issues and Interpretation Pitfalls.

The investigation of acute pulmonary embolism is a common task for radiologists in Canada. Technical image quality and reporting quality must be excellent; pulmonary embolism is a life-threatening disease that should not be missed but overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment should be avoided. The most frequently performed imaging investigation, computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA), can be limited by poor pulmonary arterial opacification, technical artifacts and interpretative errors. Image quality can be affected by patient factors (such as body habitus, motion artifact and cardiac output), intravenous (IV) contrast protocols (including the timing, rate and volume of IV contrast administration) and common physics artifacts (including beam hardening). Mimics of acute pulmonary embolism can be seen in normal anatomic structures, disease in non-vascular structures and pulmonary artery filling defects not related to acute pulmonary emboli. Understanding these pitfalls can help mitigate error, improve diagnostic quality and optimize patient outcomes. Dual energy computed tomography holds promise to improve imaging diagnosis, particularly in clinical scenarios where routine CTPA may be problematic, including patients with impaired renal function and patients with altered cardiac anatomy.

Limited Chest Ultrasound to Replace CXR in Diagnosis of Pneumothorax Post Image-Guided Transthoracic Interventions.

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of limited chest ultrasound in detecting pneumothorax following percutaneous transthoracic needle interventions using chest X-ray (CXR) as the reference standard. METHODS: With IRB approval, after providing consent, asymptomatic patients after percutaneous transthoracic needle interventions were enrolled to undergo limited chest ultrasound in addition to CXR. A chest Radiologist blinded to the patient's prior imaging performed a bedside ultrasound, scanning only the first 3 anterior intercostal spaces. Pneumothorax diagnosed on CXR was categorized as small or large and on ultrasound as grades 1, 2, or 3 when detected in 1, 2, or 3 intercostal spaces, respectively. RESULTS: 38 patients underwent 36 biopsies (34 lungs, 1 pleura, and 1 mediastinum) and 2 coil localizations. CXR showed pneumothorax in 13 patients. Ultrasound was positive in 10 patients, with 9 true-positives, 1 false-positive, 4 false-negatives, and 24 true-negatives. The false positive results were due to apical subpleural bullae. The false-negative results occurred in 2 small apical and 2 focal pneumothoraces at the needle entry sites. Four pneumothoraces were categorized as large on CXR, all of which were categorized as grade 3 on ultrasound. Sensitivity and specificity of US for detection of pneumothorax of any size were 69.23% (95%CI 38.6%, 90.1%) and 96.0% (95%CI 79.6%, 99.9%), and for detection of large pneumothorax were 100% (95%CI 39.8%, 100%) and 100% (95%CI 89.7%, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this prospective study is promising. Limited chest ultrasound could potentially replace CXR in the management of postpercutaneous transthoracic needle intervention patients.

OUTSMART HF: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Routine Versus Selective Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Patients With Nonischemic Heart Failure (IMAGE-HF 1B).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is a recommended imaging test for patients with heart failure (HF); however, there is a lack of evidence showing incremental benefit over transthoracic echocardiography. Our primary hypothesis was that routine use of CMR will yield more specific diagnoses in nonischemic HF. Our secondary hypothesis was that routine use of CMR will improve patient outcomes. METHODS: Patients with nonischemic HF were randomized to routine versus selective CMR. Patients in the routine strategy underwent echocardiography and CMR, whereas those assigned to selective use underwent echocardiography with or without CMR according to the clinical presentation. HF causes was classified from the imaging data as well as by the treating physician at 3 months (primary outcome). Clinical events were collected for 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients (344 male) with mean age 59±13 years were randomized. The routine and selective CMR strategies had similar rates of specific HF causes at 3 months clinical follow-up (44% versus 50%, respectively; P=0.22). At image interpretation, rates of specific HF causes were also not different between routine and selective CMR (34% versus 30%, respectively; P=0.34). However, 24% of patients in the selective group underwent a nonprotocol CMR. Patients with specific HF causes had more clinical events than those with nonspecific caused on the basis of imaging classification (19% versus 12%, respectively; P=0.02), but not on clinical assessment (15% versus 14%, respectively; P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with nonischemic HF, routine CMR does not yield more specific HF causes on clinical assessment. Patients with specific HF causes from imaging had worse outcomes, whereas HF causes defined clinically did not. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01281384.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.

Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology/Canadian Association of Radiologists Clinical Practice Guidance for Non-Vascular Thoracic MRI.

Historically thoracic MRI has been limited by the lower proton density of lung parenchyma, cardiac and respiratory motion artifacts and long acquisition times. Recent technological advancements in MR hardware systems and improvement in MR pulse sequences have helped overcome these limitations and expand clinical opportunities for non-vascular thoracic MRI. Non-vascular thoracic MRI has been established as a problem-solving imaging modality for characterization of thymic, mediastinal, pleural chest wall and superior sulcus tumors and for detection of endometriosis. It is increasingly recognized as a powerful imaging tool for detection and characterization of lung nodules and for assessment of lung cancer staging. The lack of ionizing radiation makes thoracic MRI an invaluable imaging modality for young patients, pregnancy and for frequent serial follow-up imaging. Lack of familiarity and exposure to non-vascular thoracic MRI and lack of consistency in existing MRI protocols have called for clinical practice guidance. The purpose of this guide, which was developed by the Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology and endorsed by the Canadian Association of Radiologists, is to familiarize radiologists, other interested clinicians and MR technologists with common and less common clinical indications for non-vascular thoracic MRI, discuss the fundamental imaging findings and focus on basic and more advanced MRI sequences tailored to specific clinical questions.

Electronic Consultation Between Primary Care Providers and Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of an electronic consultation platform to connect primary care providers and radiologists and provide opportunities for valuable consultation regarding diagnostic imaging in patients, as well as to identify opportunities for targeted education surrounding high-yield radiology topics. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective review was performed of consultations conducted using the electronic platform from September 2012 to January 2017. Consultations were classified by subspecialty (neuroradiology, thoracic, abdominal, musculoskeletal, or pediatric radiology), question type (workup, surveillance, education, specialist referral query, discharge, or other), anatomy, and pathology. Feedback surveys were completed by primary care providers after each consultation to evaluate timeliness, value, and impact on patient care. RESULTS. A total of 302 consultations were reviewed. Subspecialty breakdown was as follows: abdominal, 94/302 (31%); neuroradiology, 74/302 (25%); musculoskeletal, 61/302 (20%); thoracic, 56/302 (19%); and pediatric, 17/302 (6%). The majority of consultations pertained to patient workup (112/302 [37%]), surveillance of imaging findings (95/302 [31%]), and provider education (48/302 [16%]). Cystic lesions (38/302 [13%]), pain (24/302 [8%]), and bone lesions (21/302 [7%]) were the most queried conditions. Patient management was altered in 167 cases (55%), and unnecessary testing was avoided in 84 (28%). Providers rated the perceived value of the electronic consultation system as excellent in 227 cases (75%). CONCLUSION. The electronic consultation system allowed primary care providers to easily consult with radiologists, was perceived as high value by primary care providers, resulted in altered patient management, and avoided unnecessary imaging tests. We identified follow-up imaging of cystic lesions and imaging workup of pain in patients as opportunities for continuing medical education for primary care providers.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of infection by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents major challenges. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing is used to diagnose a current infection, but its utility as a reference standard is constrained by sampling errors, limited sensitivity (71% to 98%), and dependence on the timing of specimen collection. Chest imaging tests are being used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 disease, or when RT-PCR testing is unavailable. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of chest imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 5 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that produce estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which estimates can be computed. We included two types of cross-sectional designs: a) where all patients suspected of the target condition enter the study through the same route and b) where it is not clear up front who has and who does not have the target condition, or where the patients with the target condition are recruited in a different way or from a different population from the patients without the target condition. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we included all of them. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies and extracted data independently, in duplicate. We also assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns independently, in duplicate, using the QUADAS-2 checklist and presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 84 studies, falling into two categories: studies with participants with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19 at the time of recruitment (71 studies with 6331 participants) and studies with participants suspected of COVID-19 (13 studies with 1948 participants, including three case-control studies with 549 cases and controls). Chest CT was evaluated in 78 studies (8105 participants), chest X-ray in nine studies (682 COVID-19 cases), and chest ultrasound in two studies (32 COVID-19 cases). All evaluations of chest X-ray and ultrasound were conducted in studies with confirmed diagnoses only. Twenty-five per cent (21/84) of all studies were available only as preprints, 15/71 studies in the confirmed cases group and 6/13 of the studies in the suspected group. Among 71 studies that included confirmed cases, 41 studies had included symptomatic cases only, 25 studies had included cases regardless of their symptoms, five studies had included asymptomatic cases only, three of which included a combination of confirmed and suspected cases. Seventy studies were conducted in Asia, 2 in Europe, 2 in North America and one in South America. Fifty-one studies included inpatients while the remaining 24 studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. Risk of bias was high in most studies, mainly due to concerns about selection of participants and applicability. Among the 13 studies that included suspected cases, nine studies were conducted in Asia, and one in Europe. Seven studies included inpatients while the remaining three studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. In studies that included confirmed cases the pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 93.1% (95%CI: 90.2 - 95.0 (65 studies, 5759 cases); and for X-ray 82.1% (95%CI: 62.5 to 92.7 (9 studies, 682 cases). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the ROC plots was considerable. Two studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound and both reported zero false negatives (with 10 and 22 participants having undergone ultrasound, respectively). These studies only reported True Positive and False Negative data, therefore it was not possible to pool and derive estimates of specificity. In studies that included suspected cases, the pooled sensitivity of CT was 86.2% (95%CI: 71.9 to 93.8 (13 studies, 2346 participants) and specificity was 18.1% (95%CI: 3.71 to 55.8). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the forest plots was high. Chest CT may give approximately the same proportion of positive results for patients with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection: the chances of getting a positive CT result are 86% (95% CI: 72 to 94) in patient with a SARS-CoV-2 infection and 82% (95% CI: 44 to 96) in patients without. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty resulting from the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results. Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may not be capable of differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. This low specificity could also be the result of the poor sensitivity of the reference standard (RT-PCR), as CT could potentially be more sensitive than RT-PCR in some cases. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19 should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should avoid cases-only studies and pre-define positive imaging findings. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X rays and ultrasound; and continue to search for studies that fulfil secondary objectives to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Early research showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive but not specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, this is a rapidly developing field and these findings need to be re-evaluated in the light of new research. This is the first update of this 'living systematic review'. This update focuses on people suspected of having COVID-19 and excludes studies with only confirmed COVID-19 participants. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 22 June 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19, and which reported estimates of test accuracy, or provided data from which estimates could be computed. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we retained the classification of participants as COVID-19 positive or negative as used in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list independently, in duplicate. We categorised included studies into three groups based on classification of index test results: studies that reported specific criteria for index test positivity (group 1); studies that did not report specific criteria, but had the test reader(s) explicitly classify the imaging test result as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 2); and studies that reported an overview of index test findings, without explicitly classifying the imaging test as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 3). We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies: 30 were cross-sectional studies with 8491 participants suspected of COVID-19, of which 4575 (54%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19; four were case-control studies with 848 cases and controls in total, of which 464 (55%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest CT was evaluated in 31 studies (8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases), chest X-ray in three studies (1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases), and ultrasound of the lungs in one study (100 participants, 31 (31%) cases). Twenty-six per cent (9/34) of all studies were available only as preprints. Nineteen studies were conducted in Asia, 10 in Europe, four in North America and one in Australia. Sixteen studies included only adults, 15 studies included both adults and children and one included only children. Two studies did not report the ages of participants. Twenty-four studies included inpatients, four studies included outpatients, while the remaining six studies were conducted in unclear settings. The majority of included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias with respect to participant selection, index test, reference standard, and participant flow. For chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants (31 studies, 8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 57.4% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 0% to 96.0%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants was 89.9% (95% CI 85.7 to 92.9) and the pooled specificity was 61.1% (95% CI 42.3 to 77.1). Sensitivity analyses showed that when the studies from China were excluded, the studies from other countries demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. When studies that did not classify index tests as positive or negative for COVID-19 (group 3) were excluded, the remaining studies (groups 1 and 2) demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. Sensitivity analyses limited to cross-sectional studies, or studies where at least two reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests were conducted if the first was negative, did not substantively alter the accuracy estimates. We did not identify publication status as a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray in suspected COVID-19 participants (3 studies, 1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 56.9% to 89.0% and specificity from 11.1% to 88.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound of the lungs in suspected COVID-19 participants (1 study, 100 participants, 31 (31%) cases) were 96.8% and 62.3%, respectively. We could not perform a meta-analysis for chest X-ray or ultrasound due to the limited number of included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may have limited capability in differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. However, we are limited in our confidence in these results due to the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 cases should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest on the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for chest CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X-rays and ultrasound; and obtain data to further fulfil secondary objectives (e.g. 'threshold' effects, comparing accuracy estimates across different imaging modalities) to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways.

Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology/Canadian Association of Radiologists Consensus Statement Regarding Chest Imaging in Suspected and Confirmed COVID-19.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared infection related to a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) a pandemic. The role and impact of imaging predates this declaration and continues to change rapidly. This article is a consensus statement provided by the Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology and the Canadian Association of Radiologists outlining the role of imaging in COVID-19 patients. The objectives are to answer key questions related to COVID-19 imaging of the chest and provide guidance for radiologists who are interpreting such studies during this pandemic. The role of chest radiography (CXR), computed tomography (CT), and lung ultrasound is discussed. This document attempts to answer key questions for the imager when dealing with this crisis, such as "When is CXR appropriate in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection?" or "How should a radiologist deal with incidental findings of COVID-19 on CT of the chest done for other indications?" This article also provides recommended reporting structure for CXR and CT, breaking diagnostic possibilities for both CXR and CT into 3 categories: typical, nonspecific, and negative based on imaging findings with representative images provided. Proposed reporting language is also outlined based on this structure. As our understanding of this pandemic evolves, our appreciation for how imaging fits into the workup of patients during this unprecedented time evolves as well. Although this consensus statement was written using the most recent literature, it is important to maintain an open mind as new information continues to surface.

Fractional Flow Reserve Estimated at Coronary CT Angiography in Intermediate Lesions: Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Different Methods to Determine Coronary Flow Distribution.

Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of different computed tomographic (CT) fractional flow reserve (FFR) algorithms for vessels with intermediate stenosis. Materials and Methods This cross-sectional HIPAA-compliant and human research committee-approved study applied a four-step CT FFR algorithm in 61 patients (mean age, 69 years ± 10; age range, 29-89 years) with a lesion of intermediate-diameter stenosis (25%-69%) at CT angiography who underwent FFR measurement within 90 days. The per-lesion diagnostic performance of CT FFR was tested for three different approaches to estimate blood flow distribution for CT FFR calculation. The first two, the Murray law and the Huo-Kassab rule, used coronary anatomy; the third used contrast material opacification gradients. CT FFR algorithms and CT angiography percentage diameter stenosis (DS) measurements were compared by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to detect FFRs of 0.8 or lower. Results Twenty-five lesions (41%) had FFRs of 0.8 or lower. The AUC of CT FFR determination by using contrast material gradients (AUC = 0.953) was significantly higher than that of the Huo-Kassab (AUC = 0.882, P = .043) and Murray law models (AUC = 0.871, P = .033). All three AUCs were higher than that for 50% or greater DS at CT angiography (AUC = 0.596, P < .001). Correlation of CT FFR with FFR was highest for gradients (Spearman ρ = 0.80), followed by the Huo-Kassab rule (ρ = 0.68) and Murray law (ρ = 0.67) models. All CT FFR algorithms had small biases, ranging from -0.015 (Murray) to -0.049 (Huo-Kassab). Limits of agreement were narrowest for gradients (-0.182, 0.147), followed by the Huo-Kassab rule (-0.246, 0.149) and the Murray law (-0.285, 0.256) models. Conclusion Clinicians can perform CT FFR by using a four-step approach on site to accurately detect hemodynamically significant intermediate-stenosis lesions. Estimating blood flow distribution by using coronary contrast opacification variations may improve CT FFR accuracy. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Anomalous Coronary Arteries That Need Intervention: Review of Pre- and Postoperative Imaging Appearances.

Coronary artery anomalies constitute a diverse group of abnormalities, ranging from anatomic variants to those having hemodynamic consequences. This review focuses on major anomalies that have clinical implications requiring treatment, including anomalous origin of the coronary artery from the opposite sinus with interarterial course specifically with an intramural course, coronary artery origin from the pulmonary artery, and coronary artery fistula. Comprehensive imaging evaluation is necessary to precisely delineate the anatomy as well as pathophysiologic aspects of the anomaly before determining treatment options for a specific patient. Coronary computed tomographic angiography provides elegant depiction of coronary arterial anatomy and the relationship of the vessel to the adjacent structures, with the ability to perform three-dimensional reconstructions. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is emerging as an alternative noninvasive imaging strategy, particularly in young individuals, due to the lack of ionizing radiation and avoidance of iodinated contrast agents. This review describes the roles and recent technical advancements in computed tomography and MR imaging pertinent to coronary artery imaging. Additionally, this article will familiarize readers with the cross-sectional imaging appearance of clinically relevant coronary anomalies, hemodynamic considerations, and complex decision making. The different management strategies used for these anomalies, such as coronary unroofing, reimplantation, bypass grafting, Takeuchi repair, and surgical and interventional closure of fistulas, as well as specific posttreatment complications, are also discussed. ©RSNA, 2017.