Assessment of isotropic calcium using 0.5-mm reconstructions from 320-row CT data sets identifies more patients with non-zero Agatston score and more subclinical atherosclerosis than standard 3.0-mm coronary artery calcium scan and CT angiography.

BACKGROUND: The presence of calcified plaque in coronary arteries can be quantified by using 0.5-mm isotropic reconstructions from 320-row CT without increased radiation dose. Little is known about reclassification of patients with non-zero Agatston scores and quantitative measures of calcified plaque using 0.5-mm reconstructions. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare proportions of zero vs. non-zero Agatston scores (subclinical atherosclerosis) in 0.5-mm isotropic reconstructions vs. standard 3.0-mm and CT angiography (CTA) scans on 320-row CT. METHODS: Prospectively, we quantified calcified plaque in coronary arteries in 104 patients by using non-contrast-enhanced scans with 0.5 and 3.0 mm. Coronary calcium assessment was determined by 2 observers. Clinically indicated CTA was also performed; coronary calcium assessment findings were compared with CTA. Ranked Wilcoxon test and χ2 test were performed for comparison. Reproducibility for proportion of zero vs non-zero was assessed by κ statistics. RESULTS: Median Agatston score (41.9 [interquartile range (IQR), 3.7-213.6] vs. 5.2 [IQR, 0.0-128.5]), calcium volume (53.6 mm3 [IQR, 8.1-202.3] vs. 5.1 mm(3) [IQR, 0.0-96.8],), and lesion number (10.0 [IQR, 3.5-18.5] vs. 1.0 [IQR, 0.0-6.0]) were significantly higher on 0.5-mm reconstruction (P < .0001) than on 3.0-mm reconstruction. More patients with subclinical atherosclerosis were detected on 0.5 mm than on 3.0 mm and CTA scans (76.9% vs. 53.8% vs. 54.8%; P < .0001). The κ values for inter-rater agreement were 0.94 and 0.52 on 3.0- and 0.5-mm data sets, respectively. However, when Agatston scores < 10 were excluded from analysis, the κ value rose to 0.83. CONCLUSION: Isotropic 0.5-mm reconstruction detected 23.1% and 22.1% more patients with subclinical atherosclerosis than standard 3.0-mm scans and CTA, which may be more sensitive for the detection of subclinical atherosclerosis; its potential clinical utility needs to be validated in large, prospective studies.

Associations between routine coronary computed tomographic angiography and reduced unnecessary hospital admissions, length of stay, recidivism rates, and invasive coronary angiography in the emergency department triage of chest pain.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to assess the effects on resource utilization of routine coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in triaging chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED). BACKGROUND: The routine use of CCTA for ED evaluation of chest pain is feasible and safe. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multivariate analysis of data from two risk-matched cohorts of 894 ED patients presenting with chest pain to assess the impact of CCTA versus standard evaluation on admissions rate, length of stay, major adverse cardiovascular event rates, recidivism rates, and downstream resource utilization. RESULTS: The overall admission rate was lower with CCTA (14% vs. 40%; p < 0.001). Standard evaluation was associated with a 5.5-fold greater risk for admission (odds ratio [OR]: 5.53; p < 0.001). Expected ED length of stay with standard evaluation was about 1.6 times longer (OR: 1.55; p < 0.001). There were no differences in the rates of death and acute myocardial infarction within 30 days of the index visit between the two groups. The likelihood of returning to the ED within 30 days for recurrent chest pain was 5 times greater with standard evaluation (OR: 5.06; p = 0.022). Standard evaluation was associated with a 7-fold greater likelihood of invasive coronary angiography without revascularization (OR: 7.17; p < 0.001), while neither group was significantly more likely to receive revascularization (OR: 2.06; p = 0.193). The median radiation dose with CCTA was 5.88 mSv (n = 1039; confidence interval: 5.2 to 6.4). CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of CCTA in ED evaluation of chest pain reduces healthcare resource utilization.