Uncategorized

  • Background

    • History
    • 2 Parts
      • Calcium Score
      • CTA

  • Principles

    • requires high temporal and spatial resolution

  • Indications

    • Chest pain, shortness of breath or other symptoms of coronary artery disease.
    • Unclear or inconclusive stress test results.
    • A strong family history of early heart disease.
    • Multiple other risk factors for coronary artery disease (hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol abnormality, smoking)
    • Ruling out significant luminal stenoses in stable patients with suspected coronary stenoses, but intermediate pretest likelihood of disease
      • most useful in patients with a low-to-intermediate likelihood of CAS.
    • Suspicion of congenital anomalies
    • patients with left bundle branch block of unknown etiology
    • patients with new onset heart failure
    • ER chest pain neg ecg and enzymes  CTA can be a useful tool to rapidly assess the coronary arteries for the presence of coronary lesions  cost-effectiveness in comparison with standard diagnostic algorithms, 17

  • Contraindication

    • Relative
      •  patient’s heart rate,
      • body weight, or
      • ability to perform a breath-hold,
      • contrast or problems with
      • vascular access (which may make invasive angiography more prone to complication)–

  • Advantages

    • high negative predictive value
    • Provides high-definition 3-D images of the arteries feeding the heart and blockages at the earliest stages when they can be treated most effectively
    • Most accurate noninvasive diagnostic test for coronary artery disease
    • Measures both calcified and noncalcified plaques. Noncalcified plaques are more prone to rupture and cause heart attacks than calcified plaques. By assessing both types of plaque, coronary CTA analyzes your risk for a heart attack.
    • Monitor the effectiveness of therapy since noncalcified plaques may shrink with effective treatment
    • cross-sectional nature permits visualization not only of the contrast-enhanced coronary artery lumen, but also of the vessel wall (if image quality is adequate). In this way, atherosclerotic plaque can become visible, which is undetectable in the invasive coronary angiogram

  • Disadavantages

    •  Limited temporal resolution can reduce image quality, especially if heart rates are above 60 beats per minute (bpm)
    • Since data acquired over several heartbeats are necessary to acquire a complete data set, coronary CTA is not reliably possible in patients with arrhythmias (scanner design concepts with ?256 slices may help overcome this limitation).
    • analysis was limited to segments of ?1.5 mm in diameter.
    • Also, there is a tendency to overestimate the degree of stenosis in CT as compared with the invasive angiogram,
    • extensive calcifications can render image interpretation impossible.
    • In patients with a very low pretest likelihood, the false-positive rate may be too high,
    • patients with a very high pretest likelihood, sensitivity may not be sufficiently high.
      • patients with a high pretest likelihood of disease, performing an invasive, catheter-based coronary angiogram will often be much more appropriate because it offers the option of immediate treatment.

  • Aim

  • Method

    • Patient Preparation
    • Equipment
      • 64-slice CT has made coronary CT angiography (CTA) a relatively robust and stable tool for coronary artery visualization
    • Technique
      •  The test is done in a single breath-hold while the patient lies on a CT scanner bed.

  • Results

  • Potential Complications

TCV

See CTA Lecture

References and Links

  1. Kennedy JW. Complications associated with cardiac catheterization and angiography. Cath Cardiovasc Diagn. 1982;8:5-11.
  2. Vanhoenacker PK, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Van Heste R, et al. Diagnostic performance of multidetector CT angiography for assessment of coronary artery disease: Meta-analysis. Radiology. 2007;44:419-428.
  3. Leschka S, Wildermuth S, Boehm T, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography with 64-section CT: Effect of average heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Radiology. 2006;241:378-385.
  4. Hoffmann MH, Shi H, Manzke R, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography with 16-detector row CT: Effect of heart rate. Radiology. 2005;234:86-97.
  5. Herzog C, Arning-Erb M, Zangos S, et al. Multi-detector row CT coronary angiography: Influence of reconstruction technique and heart rate on image quality. Radiology. 2006;238:75-86
  6. Ghostine S, Caussin C, Daoud B, et al. Non-invasive detection of coronary artery disease in patients with left bundle branch block using 64-slice computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1929-1934.
  7. Leber AW, Johnson T, Becker A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source multi-slice CT-coronary angiography in patients with an intermediate pretest likelihood for coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:2354-2360.
  8. Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al. Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: First experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2739-2747.
  9. Ropers U, Ropers D, Pflederer T, et al. Influence of heart rate on the diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:2393-2398.
  10. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, et al. ACCF/ ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1475-1497.
  11. Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Malagutti P, et al. Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: A meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1896-1910.
  12. Shroeder S, Achenbach S, Bengel F, et al. Cardiac computed tomography: Indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements: Report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2008;In press.
  13. Meijboom WB, van Mieghem CA, Mollet NR, et al. 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with high, intermediate, or low pretest probability of significant coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1469-1475.
  14. Andreini D, Pontone G, Pepi M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multidetector computed coronary tomography angiography in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2044-2050.
  15. Hoffmann U, Nagurney JT, Moselewski F, et al. Coronary multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of patients with acute chest pain. Circulation. 2006;114:2251-2260. Erratum in: Circulation. 2006;114:e651.
  16. Meijboom WB, Mollet NR, Van Mieghem CA, et al. 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Heart. 2007;93:1386-1392.
  17. Goldstein JA, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, et al. A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:863-871.
  18. Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T, et al. Usefulness of 64-slice cardiac computed tomographic angiography for diagnosing acute coronary syndromes and predicting clinical outcome in emergency department patients with chest pain of uncertain origin. Circulation. 2007;115:1762-1768.
  19. Hollander JE, Litt HI, Chase M, et al. Computed tomography coronary angiography for rapid disposition of low-risk emergency department patients with chest pain syndromes. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14:112-116.
  20. Deibler AR, Kuzo RS, Vöhringer M. Imaging of congenital coronary anomalies with multislice computed tomography. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79: 1017-1023.
  21. Datta J, White CS, Gilkeson RC, et al. Anomalous coronary arteries in adults: Depiction at multi-detector row CT angiography. Radiology. 2005;235:812-818.
  22. Dodd JD, Ferencik M, Liberthson RR, et al. Congenital anomalies of coronary artery origin in adults: 64-MDCT appearance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188:W138-W146.
  23. Meijboom WB, Mollet NR, Van Mieghem CA, et al. Pre-operative computed tomography coronary angiography to detect significant coronary artery disease in patients referred for cardiac valve surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1658-1665.
  24. Nieman K, Pattynama PM, Rensing BJ, et al. Evaluation of patients after coronary artery bypass surgery: CT angiographic assessment of grafts and coronary arteries. Radiology. 2003;229:749-756.
  25. Martuscelli E, Romagnoli A, D’Eliseo A, et al. Evaluation of venous and arterial conduit patency by 16-slice spiral computed tomography. Circulation. 2004;110: 3234-3238.
  26. Schlosser T, Konorza T, Hunold P, et al. Noninvasive visualization of coronary artery bypass grafts using 16-detector row computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1224-1229.
  27. Chiurlia E, Menozzi M, Ratti C, et al. Follow-up of coronary artery bypass graft patency by multislice computed tomography. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:1094-1097.
  28. Feuchtner GM, Schachner T, Bonatti J, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-slice computed tomography in evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:574-580.
  29. Salm LP, Bax JJ, Jukema JW, et al. Comprehensive assessment of patients after coronary artery bypass grafting by 16-detector-row computed tomography. Am Heart J. 2005;150:775-781.
  30. Ropers D, Pohle FK, Kuettner A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography in patients after bypass surgery using 64-slice spiral computed tomography with 330-ms gantry rotation. Circulation. 2006;114:2334-2341.
  31. Meyer TS, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M, et al. Improved noninvasive assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts with 64-slice computed tomographic angiography in an unselected patient population. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:946-950.
  32. Mollet NR, Hoye A, Lemos PA, et al. Value of preprocedure multislice computed tomographic coronary angiography to predict the outcome of percutaneous recanalization of chronic total occlusions. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:240-243.
  33. Pflederer T, Ludwig J, Ropers D, et al. Measurement of coronary artery bifurcation angles by multidetector computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:793-798.
  34. Maintz D, Seifarth H, Raupach R, et al. 64-slice multidetector coronary CT angiography: In vitro evaluation of 68 different stents. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:818-826.
  35. Gilard M, Cornily JC, Pennec PY, et al. Assessment of coronary artery stents by 16 slice computed tomography. Heart. 2006;92:58-61.
  36. Schuijf JD, Bax JJ, Jukema JW, et al. Feasibility of assessment of coronary stent patency using 16-slice computed tomography. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94:427-430.
  37. Gaspar T, Halon DA, Lewis BS, et al. Diagnosis of coronary in-stent restenosis with multidetector row spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1573-1579.
  38. Gilard M, Cornily JC, Rioufol G, et al. Noninvasive assessment of left main coronary stent patency with 16-slice computed tomography. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:110-112.
  39. Van Mieghem CA, Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, et al. Multislice spiral computed tomography for the evaluation of stent patency after left main coronary artery stenting: A comparison with conventional coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. Circulation. 2006;114:645-653.
  40. Rixe J, Achenbach S, Ropers D, et al. Assessment of coronary artery stent restenosis by 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27:2567-2572.
  41. Oncel D, Oncel G, Karaca M. Coronary stent patency and in-stent restenosis: Determination with 64-section multidetector CT coronary angiography- initial experience. Radiology. 2007; 242:403-409.
  42. Ehara M, Kawai M, Surmely JF, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of coronary in-stent restsnosis using 64-slice computed tomography.J Am Coll Cardiol.2007; 49:951-959.
  43. Rist C, von Ziegler F, Nikolaou K, et al. Assessment of coronary artery stent patency and restenosis using 64-slice computed tomography. Acad Radiol.2006;13:1465-1473.
  44. Cademartiri F, Schuijf JD, Pugliese F, et al. Usefulness of 64-slice multislice computed tomography coronary angiography to assess in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2204-2210.
  45. Becker CR, Knez A, Ohnesorge B, et al. Imaging of noncalcified coronary plaques using helical CT with retrospective ECG gating. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:423-424.
  46. Achenbach S, Moselewski F, Ropers D, et al. Detection of calcified and noncalcified coronary atherosclerotic plaque by contrast-enhanced, submillimeter multidetector spiral computed tomography: A segment-based comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Circulation. 2004;109:14-17.
  47. Leber AW, Knez A, Becker A, et al. Accuracy of multidetector spiral computed tomography in identifying and differentiating the composition of coronary atherosclerotic plaques: A comparative study with intracoronary ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1241-1247.
  48. Leber AW, Becker A, Knez A, et al. Accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography to classify and quantify plaque volumes in the proximal coronary system: A comparative study using intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:672-627.
  49. Schroeder S, Kopp AF, Baumbach A, et al. Noninvasive detection and evaluation of atherosclerotic coronary plaques with multislice computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:1430-1435.
  50. Achenbach S, Ropers D, Hoffmann U, et al. Assessment of coronary remodeling in stenotic and nonstenotic coronary atherosclerotic lesions by multidetector spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:842-847.
  51. Caussin C, Ohanessian A, Ghostine S, et al. Characterization of vulnerable nonstenotic plaque with 16-slice computed tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94:99-100.
  52. Carrascosa PM, Capuñay CM, Garcia-Merletti P, et al. Characterization of coronary atherosclerotic plaques by multidetector computed tomography. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:598-602.
  53. Pohle K, Achenbach S, Macneill B, et al. Characterization of non-calcified coronary atherosclerotic plaque by multi-detector row CT: Comparison to IVUS. Atherosclerosis. 2007;190:174-180.
  54. Moselewski F, Ropers D, Pohle K, et al. Comparison of measurement of cross-sectional coronary atherosclerotic plaque and vessel areas by 16-slice multi-detector computed tomography versus intra-vascular ultrasound. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94: 1294-1297.
  55. Hoffmann U, Moselewski F, Nieman K, et al. Noninvasive assessment of plaque morphology and composition in culprit and stable lesions in acute coronary syndrome and stable lesions in stable angina by multidetector computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1655-1662.
  56. Motoyama S, Kondo T, Sarai M, et al. Multislice computed tomographic characteristics of coronary lesions in acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:319-326.
  57. Schuijf JD, Beck T, Burgstahler C, et al. Differences in plaque composition and distribution in stable coronary artery disease versus acute coronary syndromes; non-invasive evaluation with multi-slice computed tomography. Acute Card Care. 2007;9: 48-53.
  58. Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, et al. Prognostic value of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49:62-70.

TCV Cases