Diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography for stenosis detection according to calcium score: systematic review and meta-analysis
- 969 Downloads
A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess sensitivity and specificity of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for significant stenosis at different degrees of coronary calcification.
A literature search was performed including studies describing test characteristics of CCTA for significant stenosis, performed with at least 16-MDCT and according to calcium score (CS). Invasive coronary angiography was the reference standard. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of CCTA by CS categories and CT equipment were calculated.
Of 14,121 articles, 51 studies reported on the impact of calcium scoring on diagnostic performance of CCTA and could be included in the systematic review. Twenty-seven of these studies (5,203 participants) were suitable for meta-analysis. On a patient-basis, sensitivity of CCTA for significant stenosis was 95.8, 95.6, 97.6 and 99.0% for CS 0–100, 101–400, 401–1,000 and >1,000 respectively. Specificity was 91.2, 88.2, 50.6 and 84.0% respectively. Specificity of CCTA was significantly lower for CS 401–1,000 due to lack of patients without significant stenosis. Sensitivity and specificity of 16-MDCT were significantly lower compared to more modern CT systems.
Even in cases of severe coronary calcification, sensitivity and specificity of CCTA for significant stenosis are high. With 64-MDCT and newer CT systems, a CS cut-off for performing CCTA no longer seems indicated.
• Decisions about performing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) sometimes depend on calcium scoring.
• CCTA is highly sensitive for coronary stenosis.
• With 16-MDCT, however, heavy calcification reduces specificity for significant stenosis.
• For 64-MDCT (and above), CCTA has high specificity, even with severe coronary calcification.
KeywordsComputed tomography angiography Calcium score Coronary artery disease Meta-analysis Systematic review
Coronary artery disease
Coronary CT angiography
Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
- 2.Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M et al (2007) Non-invasive coronary computed tomographic angiography for patients with suspected coronary artery disease: the coronary angiography by computed tomography with the use of a submillimeter resolution (CACTUS) trial. Eur Heart J 28:3034–3041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Gang S, Min L, Li L et al (2011) Evaluation of CT coronary artery angiography with 320-row detector CT in a high-risk population. Br J Radiol. doi:10.1259/bjr/90347290
- 9.Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM et al (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:1864–1894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (assessment by coronary computed tomographic angiography of individuals undergoing invasive coronary angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:1724–1732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Brodoefel H, Reimann A, Burgstahler C et al (2008) Noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography in an unselected patient collective: effect of heart rate, heart rate variability and coronary calcifications on image quality and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Radiol 66:134–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Sousa PJ, Goncalves PA, Marques H et al (2010) Best calcium score cut-off to predict obstructive coronary artery disease in cardiac computed tomography. Eur Heart J 31:133–134Google Scholar
- 48.Marano R, De Cobelli F, Floriani I et al (2009) Italian multicenter, prospective study to evaluate the negative predictive value of 16- and 64-slice MDCT imaging in patients scheduled for coronary angiography (NIMISCAD-non invasive multicenter Italian study for coronary artery disease). Eur Radiol 19:1114–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Zhao Y, Wei J, Hua Q, Wang J, He J, Li J (2008) Comparison of multi-slice CT coronary artery imaging with coronary angiography. J Clin Rehab Tissue Eng Res 12:8792–8796Google Scholar
- 51.Dewey M, Vavere AL, Arbab-Zadeh A et al (2010) Patient characteristics as predictors of image quality and diagnostic accuracy of MDCT compared with conventional coronary angiography for detecting coronary artery stenoses: CORE-64 multicenter international trial. Am J Roentgenol 194:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.Schwartz A (2007) Diagnostic test calculator. http://araw.mede.uic.edu/cgi-ebm/testcalc.pl
- 63.Harbord RM, Whiting P (2009) Metandi: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. Stata J 9:211–229Google Scholar
- 65.Abdulla J, Pedersen KS, Budoff M, Kofoed KF (2011) Influence of coronary calcification on the diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:10.1007/s10554-011-9902-6
- 66.Sangiorgi G, Rumberger JA, Severson A et al (1998) Arterial calcification and not lumen stenosis is highly correlated with atherosclerotic plaque burden in humans: a histologic study of 723 coronary artery segments using nondecalcifying methodology. J Am Coll Cardiol 31:126–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar