Increasing efforts to screen and diagnose coronary artery disease have used imaging modalities such as catheter angiography, ultrasound, and MRI. Electron-beam CT was, for a long time, the only CT system able to image the coronary arteries without motion artifacts. But multislice CT has advanced rapidly over the last decade, and state-of-the-art 64-slice and dual-source CT now offer high-quality imaging of the coronary arteries, myocardium, and valves, providing morphological and even functional information.
Increasing efforts to screen and diagnose coronary artery disease have used imaging modalities such as catheter angiography, ultrasound, and MRI. Electron-beam CT was, for a long time, the only CT system able to image the coronary arteries without motion artifacts. But multislice CT has advanced rapidly over the last decade, and state-of-the-art 64-slice and dual-source CT now offer high-quality imaging of the coronary arteries, myocardium, and valves, providing morphological and even functional information.
Coronary calcium is a surrogate marker for coronary atherosclerosis, and its levels have been measured by EBCT for more than a decade. A number of prospective cohort studies are currently under way to measure the value of coronary calcium evaluation against conventional risk factors when estimating the risk of future cardiovascular events. Initial results published from the South Bay Heart Watch study (2000 subjects) show that coronary calcium is of minor predictive value in patients with diabetes and that differences exist in terms of prevalence and progression of coronary calcium in different ethnic groups.1 The Heinz-Nixdorf RECALL study (4200 subjects) provides unbiased information on the extent of coronary calcium in the general German population.2
The authors of the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium study (2000 40 to 50-year-old subjects) found the CT-based assessment of coronary calcium to be superior to the conventional Framingham risk score when determining the likelihood of future cardiac events. Similar predictive value has been found for individuals with coronary calcium and a positive family history of coronary heart disease. But at a cost of $37,633 per quality-adjusted life year saved, screening for coronary artery disease under these circumstances does not seem to be cost-effective.3
The Multi Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (6800 subjects) has reported that all MSCT systems are at least as reliable as EBCT for performing and reproducing coronary calcium measurements.4 Further studies are needed to determine whether MSCT coronary calcium screening is a more cost-effective option.
Cardiac CT angiography is now sufficiently robust to be used routinely for a number of clinical applications. More than 16 published studies have compared 64-slice CT with coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery stenoses. These papers, which together draw on data from 1400 patients, conclude that on average 95% of all coronary segments are fully accessible and can be compared to cardiac catheter findings. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values have been reported as 85%, 96%, 85%, and 96%, respectively. Because of the high negative predictive value, most investigators have looked specifically into patient cohorts with a low to intermediate likelihood (prevalence 22%) of coronary artery disease.5-8
The detection of coronary artery stenoses on CT may still be hindered by collateral flow, retrograde filling, plaque formation with positive vessel remodeling, and extensive calcifications. Grading the degree of stenosis remains a challenge as well, as a result of CT's limited spatial resolution.
The noninvasive nature of cardiac CT means that it is not competing directly with cardiac catheterization. It should be viewed instead as a triaging tool to determine whether patients are treated conservatively or referred for invasive therapy. This approach may put CTA in direct competition with the nuclear stress or ECG treadmill test. A head-to-head comparison between stress ECG and cardiac CT showed CT to have a significantly higher sensitivity (91% versus 73%) and specificity (83% versus 31%). CT was unable to assess 8% of patients, while stress ECG failed to evaluate 19% of study subjects.9
The reliability and efficiency of cardiac CT depend greatly on the pretest probability of patients for coronary artery disease. Assuming the costs of cardiac catheterization, CT, ultrasound, and stress ECG to be approximately Euro 630, Euro 175, Euro 130, and Euro 30, respectively, CT is the most cost-efficient modality up to a pretest likelihood of 50%.10
The clinical implication is that patients with nonanginal chest pain and women with atypical angina may benefit from cardiac CT as a rapid test for excluding coronary artery disease. Cardiac CT may also serve as an alternative to immediate cardiac catheterization in younger male patients with atypical chest pains and in younger females, even those with typical angina.11
Cardiac CTA may also offer a practical option for triaging patients with acute chest pain. This is evidenced in a study of 200 patients reported earlier this year.12 Study subjects, all of whom presented with acute chest pain, were randomly assigned to either the standard of care with a nuclear stress test or an alternative pathway that included cardiac CT triaging prior to further workup. Patients' workup was faster (3.4 hours versus 15 hours) and cheaper ($1586 versus $1872) in the cardiac CT arm.
Only two patients from the CT group returned after a certain period with recurrent chest pain, compared with seven patients in the standard care arm. The combination of a rapid morphological test and an on-demand functional test would appear to be the ideal way of reaching a valid diagnosis in this cohort.
Data suggest that CTA may additionally be a valid diagnostic approach in patients with coronary artery stents (Figure 1).13 Cardiac CT won't reveal any information about myocardial perfusion in patients with myocardial ischemia, however. The technique is consequently of limited value when coronary symptoms are present. Small stents are still difficult to assess, and in-stent stenosis cannot be ruled out.
The introduction of 64-slice CT has improved the reliability of coronary artery bypass grafts. The accuracy of arterial and venous grafts is in the range of 98%. Distal runoff or nongrafted coronary artery segments are commonly difficult to assess, however, because the original vessels in patients with bypass grafts are so often severely calcified.14
Patients requiring further surgery after a bypass procedure will benefit from the ability of cardiac CT to visualize grafts concisely, in particular grafts that run behind the sternum.15 This gives cardiac CT a clear advantage over conventional radiography and cardiac catheterization in this patient group (Figure 2).16 Cardiac CT also appears to be a preferable screening tool for patients undergoing cardiac surgery for reasons other than coronary artery disease.17
Cardiac CT is frequently requested for patients with atrial fibrillation who are scheduled for catheter ablation. The visualization of left atrium anatomy on CT helps to determine any accessory or anomalous courses of the pulmonary veins (Figure 3).18 CT data from the heart can be input into commercially available software to plan and guide the procedure.19 It is also important to rule out coronary artery disease in this particular cohort of patients because anti-arrhythmic medical therapy may provoke arrhythmia if it is present.
It may be desirable to achieve high, homogeneous enhancement in the coronary arteries, aorta, and pulmonary arteries in a single examination for patients with ambiguous symptoms in the chest. This means maintaining the contrast bolus for the entire scan and during the passage of the bolus from the pulmonary arteries to the coronary arteries (Figure 4).20 A protocol of this type would provide comprehensive information on possible differential diagnoses, such as aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, degenerative spine disease, esophagitis, and tumor manifestation. Patients would, however, be exposed to a significant amount of radiation.
CT is superior to MR imaging for displaying coronary artery morphology, whereas MRI is preferable to CT when seeking information about myocardial function. A combination of both modalities is sometimes required to gain the most accurate diagnosis. It is thus hard to believe that CT will ever serve as a one-stop shop for any cardiac disease. Cardiac CT is more likely to fit into the cardiology environment as a cost-effective method of deciding quickly and efficiently on the most appropriate therapy in patients with low to moderate risk of coronary artery disease.
DR. BECKER is chief of body CT and PET/CT at the Grosshadern Clinic, Munich University Hospital, in Germany.
Improving Adherence to Best Practices for Incidental Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms on CT and MRI
November 5th 2024In recent interviews, Eric Rohren, M.D., and Krishna Nallamshetty, M.D., discuss the potential of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) to progress into life-threatening consequences and an emerging AI-powered tool that may bolster adherence to best practice recommendations in radiology reporting of incidental AAA findings on CT and MRI.
Artifact Reduction Drives Technology Advances with Updated Version of Echelon Synergy MRI System
October 30th 2024Emerging technologies included with the 10th version of the 1.5T MRI platform include Synergy DLR Clear and Synergy Vision that are geared toward mitigating common challenges with artifacts.