To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography for detecting coronary artery stenosis. From February 2008 to January 2009, dual-source CT coronary CT angiography (DSCT-CCTA) and conventional coronary angiography (CAG) were both performed in 84 patients who had either clinical symptoms or a high risk of coronary artery disease. The diagnostic accuracy of DSCT-CCTA was evaluated by comparing it with that of CAG, which was regarded as the gold standard for making the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Occlusion or stenosis of various degrees was revealed by DSCT-CCTA in 244 segments of 84 patients. Compared to CAG, segment-based sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of DSCT-CCTA were 97.4, 97.8, 92.2 and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of DSCT-CCTA for the detection of coronary artery stenosis was 96.5%. The paired χ2 tests revealed no significant difference between DSCT-CCTA and CAG for making the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (P = 0.076). The diagnostic performance of DSCT-CCTA is generally as accurate as that of CAG. Thus, DSCT-CCTA is a reliable non-invasive method for detecting coronary artery stenosis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A et al (2006) Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: First experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol 16(12):2739–2747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kuettner A, Beck T, Drosch T et al (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary imaging using 16-detector slice spiral computed tomography with 188 ms temporal resolution. J Am Coll Cardiol 45(1):123–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pache G, Saueressig U, Frydrychowicz A et al (2006) Initial experience with 64-slice cardiac CT: non-invasive visualization of coronary artery bypass grafts. Eur Heart J 27(8):976–980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pannu HK, Flohr TG, Corl FM et al (2003) Current concepts in multi-detector row CT evaluation of the coronary arteries: principles, techniques, and anatomy. Radiographics 23:S111–S125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wexler L, Brundage B, Crouse J et al (1996) Coronary artery calcification: pathophysiology, epidemiology, imaging methods, and clinical implications. A statement for health professionals from the American Heart Association Writing Group. Circulation 94(5):1175–1192PubMedGoogle Scholar
Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Busch S et al (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Invest Radiol 42(10):684–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Achenbach S, Ropers D, Kuettner A et al (2006) Contrast-enhanced coronary artery visualization by dual-source computed tomography—initial experience. Eur J Radiol 57(3):331–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ et al (2006) Dual-source CT cardiac imaging: initial experience. Eur Radiol 16(7):1409–1415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Leschka S, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L et al (2007) Image quality and reconstruction intervals of dual-source CT coronary angiography: recommendations for ECG-pulsing windowing. Invest Radiol 42(8):543–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rist C, Johnson TR, Muller-Starck J et al (2009) Noninvasive coronary angiography using dual-source computed tomography in patients with atrial fibrillation. Invest Radiol 44(3):159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leber AW, Johnson T, Becker A et al (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source multi-slice CT-coronary angiography in patients with an intermediate pretest likelihood for coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 28(19):2354–2360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Cury RC, Pomerantsev EV, Ferencik M et al (2005) Comparison of the degree of coronary stenoses by multidetector computed tomography versus by quantitative coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol 96(6):784–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar