Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 307–316

The Diagnostic Performance of Multi-slice Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: a Systematic Review

  • Daniel A. Ollendorf
  • Michelle Kuba
  • Steven D. Pearson
Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The use of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) for evaluation of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) is growing rapidly, yet questions remain regarding its diagnostic accuracy and its impact on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies examining (a) CCTA’s diagnostic accuracy; and (b) the impact of CCTA on clinical decision-making and/or patient outcomes. Diagnostic accuracy estimates were limited to patient-based analyses of occlusion; outcome studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved patients at low-to-intermediate risk of CAD. Pooled accuracy estimates were derived using bivariate random effects models; non-diagnostic CCTA results were conservatively assumed to be false positives.

RESULTS

A total of 42 diagnostic accuracy studies and 11 patient outcome studies were identified. The pooled mean sensitivity for CCTA in primary analyses was 98% (95% CI: 96%, 99%); specificity was 85% (81%, 89%). A small number of outcome studies set primarily in the emergency department found triage of low-risk patients using CCTA produced no serious adverse outcomes and was time-saving relative to standard triage care. Outcome studies in the outpatient setting were limited to four case series that did not directly compare patient care or outcomes with those of contemporaneous patients evaluated without CCTA.

CONCLUSIONS

CCTA appears to have high diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected CAD, but its potential impact on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes is less well-understood, particularly in non-emergent settings.

KEY WORDS

multislice CT coronary artery disease diagnostic value systematic review 

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC. Heart Disease Facts and Statistics. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/print.do?url=http://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm. Accessed October 13, 2010.
  2. 2.
    Gallagher MJ, Ross MA, Raff GL, Goldstein JA, O’Neill WW, O’Neil B. The diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography compared with stress nuclear imaging in emergency department low-risk chest pain patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(2):125–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noto TJ Jr, Johnson LW, Krone R, et al. Cardiac catheterization 1990: a report of the Registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCA&I). Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1991;24:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1531–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Auseon AJ, Advani SS, Bush CA, Raman SV. Impact of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography on other diagnostic studies for coronary artery disease. Am J Med. 2009;122:387–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    IMV Medical Research. Present practices & future directions in cardiac imaging: the cardiologist’s perspective. IMV Medical Information Division. Feb. 3, 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;48:1475–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Detection of Coronary Artery Disease. Available at: http://www.icer-review.org/index.php/ccta.html. Accessed October 13, 2010.
  9. 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;50:2393–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shapiro MD, Butler J, Rieber J, et al. Analytic approaches to establish the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography as a tool for clinical decision making.[see comment]. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1122–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(17):iii-iv, ix-143.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:982–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Song F, Khan KS, Dinnes J, Sutton AJ. Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:88–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:882–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, et al. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31. end.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, for the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schroeder 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 on Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(4):531–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goehring C, Perrier A, Morabia A. Spectrum bias: a quantitative and graphical analysis of the variability of medical diagnostic test performance. Stat Med. 2004;23(1):125–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. 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. 2008;52:1724–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2324–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:2135–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Achenbach S, Ropers U, Kuettner A, et al. Randomized comparison of 64-slice single- and dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;1:177–86.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bayrak F, Guneysu T, Gemici G, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography to detect significant coronary artery stenosis. Acta Cardiol. 2008;63:11–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cademartiri F, Maffei E, Notarangelo F, et al. 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: diagnostic accuracy in the real world. Radiol Med. 2008;113:163–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cademartiri F, Maffei E, Palumbo A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with low-to-intermediate risk. Radiol Med. 2007;112:969–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ehara M, Surmely JF, Kawai M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography for detecting angiographically significant coronary artery stenosis in an unselected consecutive patient population: comparison with conventional invasive angiography. Circulation. 2006;70:564–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fine JJ, Hopkins CB, Ruff N, Newton FC. Comparison of accuracy of 64-slice cardiovascular computed tomography with coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:173–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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.[see comment]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1929–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hacker M, Jakobs T, Hack N, et al. Sixty-four slice spiral CT angiography does not predict the functional relevance of coronary artery stenoses in patients with stable angina.[see comment]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:4–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Husmann L, Schepis T, Scheffel H, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with low, intermediate, and high cardiovascular risk. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:452–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Busch S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Investig Radiol. 2007;42:684–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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.[see comment]. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:2354–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F, et al. Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound.[see comment]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:147–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al. Accuracy of MSCT coronary angiography with 64-slice technology: first experience.[see comment]. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1482–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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;50:1469–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CA, et al. High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography.[see comment]. Circulation. 2005;112:2318–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muhlenbruch G, Seyfarth T, Soo CS, Pregalathan N, Mahnken AH. Diagnostic value of 64-slice multi-detector row cardiac CTA in symptomatic patients. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:603–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nikolaou K, Knez A, Rist C, et al. Accuracy of 64-MDCT in the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:111–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oncel D, Oncel G, Tastan A, Tamci B. Detection of significant coronary artery stenosis with 64-section MDCT angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2007;62:394–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Plass A, Grunenfelder J, Leschka S, et al. Coronary artery imaging with 64-slice computed tomography from cardiac surgical perspective.[see comment]. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg. 2006;30:109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pugliese F, Mollet NR, Hunink MG, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography by using different generations of multisection scanners: single-center experience. Radiology. 2008;246:384–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pugliese F, Mollet NR, Runza G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive 64-slice CT coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:575–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, et al. Gender influence on the diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice multislice computed tomography coronary angiography for detection of obstructive coronary artery disease. Heart. 2008;94:48–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, Goldstein JA. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography.[see comment]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:552–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ropers D, Rixe J, Anders K, et al. Usefulness of multidetector row spiral computed tomography with 64- × 0.6-mm collimation and 330-ms rotation for the noninvasive detection of significant coronary artery stenoses. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:343–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T, et al. Usefulness of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic triage of patients with chest pain and negative or nondiagnostic exercise treadmill test result. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:925–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    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;16:2739–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schuijf JD, Pundziute G, Jukema JW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice multislice computed tomography in the noninvasive evaluation of significant coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:145–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shabestari AA, Abdi S, Akhlaghpoor S, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-channel multislice computed tomography in assessment of significant coronary artery disease in symptomatic subjects. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1656–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Romagnoli A, Martuscelli E, Sperandio M, et al. Role of 64-slice cardiac computed tomography in the evaluation of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Radiol Med. 2009. doi:10.1007/s11547-009-0482-7 (Epub ahead of print).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lin CJ, Hsu JC, Lai YJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography in a population unselected for degree of coronary artery calcification and without heart rate modification. Clin Radiol. 2010;65:109–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Maffei E, Palumbo A, Martini C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in a large population of patients without revascularization: registry data and review of multicentre trials. Radiol Med. 2009. doi:10.1007/s11547-009-0492-5 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Husmann L, Herzog BA, Burger IA, et al. Usefulness of additional coronary calcium scoring in low-dose CT coronary angiography with prospective ECG-triggering: impact on total effective radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:201–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Thomas C, Brodoefel H, Tsiflikas I, et al. Does clinical pretest probability influence image quality and diagnostic accuracy in dual-source coronary CT angiography? Acad Radiol. 2010;17:212–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Maffei E, Palumbo A, Martini C, et al. Stress-ECG vs. CT coronary angiography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a “real-world” experience. Radiol Med. 2009. doi:10.1007/s11547-009-0456-9 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of high-pitch dual-source CT for the assessment of coronary stenoses: first experience. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2896–903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dewey M, Zimmerman E, Deissenrieder F, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy: comparison of results with cardiac catheterization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation. 2009;120:867–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cademartiri F, Maffei E, Palumbo A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography angiography in patients with zero calcium score. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:81–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shaw LJ, Berman DS. Functional versus anatomic imaging in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Cardiol Clin. 2009;27:597–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Danciu SC, Herrera CJ, Stecy PJ, et al. Usefulness of multislice computed tomographic coronary angiography to identify patients with abnormal myocardial perfusion stress in whom diagnostic catheterization may be safely avoided. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100(11):1605–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Goldstein JA, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, Ross MA, O’Neil BJ, Raff GL. A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain.[see comment]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(8):863–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hoffmann U, Nagurney JT, Moselewski F, et al. Coronary multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of patients with acute chest pain.[see comment][erratum appears in Circulation. 2006 Dec 19;114(25):e651]. Circulation. 2006;114:2251–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hollander JE, Litt HI, Chase M, Brown AM, Kim W, Baxt WG. Computed tomography coronary angiography for rapid disposition of low-risk emergency department patients with chest pain syndromes. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14:112–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ, et al. ECG-gated 64-MDCT angiography in the differential diagnosis of acute chest pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:76–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    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.[see comment]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:62–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T, et al. Impact of 64-slice cardiac computed tomographic angiography on clinical decision-making in emergency department patients with chest pain of possible myocardial ischemic origin. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:1522–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Savino G, Herzog C, Costello P, Schoepf UJ. 64 slice cardiovascular CT in the emergency department: concepts and first experiences. Radiol Med. 2006;111:481–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hay CSM, Morse RJ, Morgan-Hughes GJ, et al. Prognostic value of coronary multidetector CT angiography in patients with an intermediate probability of significant coronary heart disease. Br J Radiol. 2009. doi:10.1259/bjr/15021566 (Epub ahead of print).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wagdi P, Alkadhi H. The impact of cardiac CT on the appropriate utilization of catheter coronary angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009. doi:10.1007/s10554-009-9541-3 (Epub ahead of print).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Berman DS. Diagnostic accuracy of gated Tc-99m sestamibi stress myocardial perfusion SPECT with combined supine and prone acquisitions to detect coronary artery disease in obese and nonobese patients. J Nucl Cardiol. 2006;13:191–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sampson UK, Dorbala S, Limaye A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rubidium-82 myocardial perfusion imaging with hybrid positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1052–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Redberg RF. Evidence, appropriateness, and technology assessment in cardiology: a case study of computed tomography. Health Aff. 2007;26:86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Koepfli P, et al. Accuracy of 64-slice CT angiography for the detection of functionally relevant coronary stenoses as assessed with myocardial perfusion SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1162–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schuijf JD, Wijns W, Jukema JW, et al. Relationship between noninvasive coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography and myocardial perfusion imaging.[see comment]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2508–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Abdulla J, Abildstrom SZ, Gotzsche O, et al. 64-multislice detector computed tomography coronary angiography as potential alternative to conventional coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:3042–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sun Z, Jiang W. Diagnostic value of multislice computed tomography angiography in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2006;60:279–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Stein PD, Beemath A, Kayali F, et al. 64-slice CT for diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Am J Med. 2006;119:203–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Schuetz GM, Zacharopoulou NM, Schlattmann P, Dewey M. Meta analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:167–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Ollendorf
    • 1
  • Michelle Kuba
    • 2
  • Steven D. Pearson
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Clinical and Economic ReviewBostonUSA
  2. 2.Thomson ReutersCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations