Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 787–795

What have we learned from CONFIRM? Prognostic implications from a prospective multicenter international observational cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography

  • Yuka Otaki
  • Reza Arsanjani
  • Heidi Gransar
  • Victor Y. Cheng
  • Damini Dey
  • Troy Labounty
  • Fay Y. Lin
  • Stephan Achenbach
  • Mouaz Al-Mallah
  • Matthew J. Budoff
  • Filippo Cademartiri
  • Tracy Q. Callister
  • Hyuk-Jae Chang
  • Kavitha Chinnaiyan
  • Benjamin J. W. Chow
  • Augustin Delago
  • Martin Hadamitzky
  • Joerg Hausleiter
  • Philipp Kaufmann
  • Erica Maffei
  • Gilbert Raff
  • Leslee J. Shaw
  • Todd C. Villines
  • Allison Dunning
  • Ricardo C. Cury
  • Gudrun Feuchtner
  • Yong-Jin Kim
  • Jonathon Leipsic
  • Daniel S. Berman
  • James K. Min
Review Article

Abstract

Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) employing CT scanners of 64-detector rows or greater represents a novel non-invasive method for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD), providing excellent diagnostic information when compared to invasive angiography. In addition to its high diagnostic performance, prior studies have shown that CCTA can provide important prognostic information, although these prior studies have been generally limited to small cohorts at single centers. The Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter registry, or CONFIRM, is a large, prospective, multinational, dynamic observational cohort study of patients undergoing CCTA. This registry currently represents more than 32,000 consecutive adults suspected of having CAD who underwent ≥64-detector row CCTA at 12 centers in 6 countries between 2005 and 2009. Based on its large sample size and adequate statistical power, the data derived from CONFIRM registry have and will continue to provide key answers to many important topics regarding CCTA. Based on its multisite international national design, the results derived from CONFIRM should be considered as more generalizable than prior smaller single-center studies. This article summarizes the current status of several studies from CONFIRM registry.

Keywords

Prognosis coronary artery disease coronary CT angiography 

References

  1. 1.
    Mowatt G, Cook JA, Hillis GS, et al. 64-slice computed tomography angiography in the diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 2008;94:1386-93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meijboom WB, Meijs MFL, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: A prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:2135-44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, et al. Evaluation of plaque characteristics in acute coronary syndromes: Non-invasive assessment with multi-slice computed tomography and invasive evaluation with intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data analysis. Eur Heart J 2008;29:2373-81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Voros S, Rinehart S, Qian Z, et al. Coronary atherosclerosis imaging by coronary CT angiography: Current status, correlation with intravascular interrogation and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:537-48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Min JK, Shaw LJ, Devereux RB, et al. Prognostic value of multidetector coronary computed tomographic angiography for prediction of all-cause mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1161-70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hulten EA, Carbonaro S, Petrillo SP, Mitchell JD, Villines TC. Prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography angiography: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:1237-47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Min JK, Dunning A, Lin FY, et al. Rationale and design of the CONFIRM (coronary CT angiography evaluation for clinical outcomes: An International Multicenter) registry. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011;5:84-92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaitman BR, Bourassa MG, Davis K, et al. Angiographic prevalence of high-risk coronary artery disease in patient subsets (CASS). Circulation 1981;64:360-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979;300:1350-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pryor DB, Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Califf RM, Rosati RA. Estimating the likelihood of significant coronary artery disease. Am J Med 1983;75:771-80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pryor DB, Shaw L, McCants CB, et al. Value of the history and physical in identifying patients at increased risk for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:81-90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng VY, Berman DS, Rozanski A, et al. Performance of the traditional age, sex, and angina typicality-based approach for estimating pretest probability of angiographically significant coronary artery disease in patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography: Results from the multinational Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter registry (CONFIRM). Circulation 2011;124:2423-32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akram K, O’Donnell RE, King S, Superko HR, Agatston A, Voros S. Influence of symptomatic status on the prevalence of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with zero calcium score. Atherosclerosis 2009;203:533-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cademartiri F, Maffei E, Palumbo A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with a zero calcium score. Eur Radiol 2010;20:81-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gottlieb I, Miller JM, Arbab-Zadeh A, et al. The absence of coronary calcification does not exclude obstructive coronary artery disease or the need for revascularization in patients referred for conventional coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:627-34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubinshtein R, Gaspar T, Halon DA, Goldstein J, Peled N, Lewis BS. Prevalence and extent of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with zero or low calcium score undergoing 64-slice cardiac multidetector computed tomography for evaluation of a chest pain syndrome. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:472-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Villines TC, Hulten EA, Shaw LJ, et al. Prevalence and severity of coronary artery disease and adverse events among symptomatic patients with coronary artery calcification scores of zero undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography: Results from the CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:2533-40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Min JK, Dunning A, Lin FY, et al. Age- and sex-related differences in all-cause mortality risk based on coronary computed tomography angiography findings: Results from the international multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter registry) of 23,854 patients without known coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:849-60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS, Hirsch M, et al. Application of conditional probability analysis to the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Clin Invest 1980;65:1210-21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Achenbach S, Berman DS, Budoff MJ, et al. Abstract 14099: Prognostic value of coronary CT angiography for the prediction of mortality and non-fatal major adverse cardiac events: Results from the multinational CONFIRM registry. Circulation 2011;124:A14099.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson SR, Lin FY, Dunning AM, et al. Abstract 14999: Prognostic value of plaque composition for the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients without known coronary artery disease undergoing 64-detector row coronary CT angiography: Results from 6,335 patients in the prospective multinational CONFIRM registry (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter registry. Circulation 2011;124:A14999.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buse JB, Ginsberg HN, Bakris GL, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in people with diabetes mellitus: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2007;30:162-72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haffner SM, Lehto S, Rönnemaa T, Pyörälä K, Laakso M. Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998;339:229-34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whiteley L, Padmanabhan S, Hole D, Isles C. Should diabetes be considered a coronary heart disease risk equivalent? Results from 25 years of follow-up in the Renfrew and Paisley survey. Diabetes Care 2005;28:1588-93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Howard BV, Best LG, Galloway JM, et al. Coronary heart disease risk equivalence in diabetes depends on concomitant risk factors. Diabetes Care 2006;29:391-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grundy SM. Diabetes and coronary risk equivalency: What does it mean? Diabetes Care 2006;29:457-60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lin F, Chinnaiyan K, Dunning AM, et al. Gender differences in all-cause death by extent and severity of coronary artery disease by cardiac computed tomographic angiography: A matched analysis of the CONFIRM registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:E773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hulten E, Villines TC, Dunning AL, et al. Coronary artery disease burden by coronary CT angiography predicts mortality and myocardial infarction across multiple ethnicities: Results from the CONFIRM registry. Circulation 2011;124:A15717.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Otaki Y, LaBounty T, Dunning A, et al. Young patients with a family history of coronary artery disease have higher prevalence, increased severity, and worse prognosis of coronary atherosclerosis: Results from 6308 patients in the prospective multinational CONFIRM registry (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter registry). J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:E1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    LaBounty TM, Achenbach S, Al-Mallah M, et al. Hypertensive individuals have an increased prevalence of coronary artery disease and risk of adverse events: A comparison of 15,091 individuals from CONFIRM (coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter registry). J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:E1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chow BJW, Wells GA, Chen L, et al. Prognostic value of 64-slice cardiac computed tomography severity of coronary artery disease, coronary atherosclerosis, and left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1017-28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chow BJW, Small G, Yam Y, et al. Incremental prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography in coronary artery disease using CONFIRM: Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Evaluation For Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter registry. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:463-72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Arsanjani R, LaBounty T, Gransar H, et al. Degree of left ventricular systolic dysfunction by cardiac computed tomographic angiography improves risk stratification and discrimination of patients at risk for incident mortality: Results from 7907 patients in the prospective multicenter international CONFIRM study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:E1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Small GR, Yam Y, Chen L, et al. Prognostic assessment of coronary artery bypass patients with 64-slice computed tomography angiography: Anatomical information is incremental to clinical risk prediction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:2389-95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuka Otaki
    • 1
  • Reza Arsanjani
    • 1
  • Heidi Gransar
    • 1
  • Victor Y. Cheng
    • 1
    • 2
  • Damini Dey
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Troy Labounty
    • 1
  • Fay Y. Lin
    • 4
  • Stephan Achenbach
    • 6
  • Mouaz Al-Mallah
    • 7
  • Matthew J. Budoff
    • 8
  • Filippo Cademartiri
    • 9
    • 10
  • Tracy Q. Callister
    • 11
  • Hyuk-Jae Chang
    • 12
  • Kavitha Chinnaiyan
    • 13
  • Benjamin J. W. Chow
    • 14
  • Augustin Delago
    • 15
  • Martin Hadamitzky
    • 16
  • Joerg Hausleiter
    • 16
  • Philipp Kaufmann
    • 17
  • Erica Maffei
    • 9
    • 10
  • Gilbert Raff
    • 13
  • Leslee J. Shaw
    • 18
  • Todd C. Villines
    • 19
  • Allison Dunning
    • 5
  • Ricardo C. Cury
    • 20
  • Gudrun Feuchtner
    • 21
  • Yong-Jin Kim
    • 22
  • Jonathon Leipsic
    • 23
  • Daniel S. Berman
    • 1
    • 2
  • James K. Min
    • 1
    • 2
    • 24
  1. 1.Departments of Imaging and Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Heart InstituteCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical Sciences and Biomedical Imaging Research InstituteCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineWeill Cornell Medical College and the New York Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Department of Public HealthWeill Cornell Medical College and the New York Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of MedicineUniversity of ErlangenErlangenGermany
  7. 7.Department of Medicine, Henry Ford HospitalWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  8. 8.Department of MedicineHarbor UCLA Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  9. 9.CardioVascular Imaging UnitGiovanni XXIII HospitalMonastierItaly
  10. 10.Department of RadiologyErasmus Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  11. 11.Tennessee Heart and Vascular InstituteHendersonvilleUSA
  12. 12.Division of CardiologySeverance Cardiovascular HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  13. 13.William Beaumont HospitalRoyal OakUSA
  14. 14.Department of Medicine and RadiologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  15. 15.Capitol Cardiology AssociatesAlbanyUSA
  16. 16.Division of CardiologyDeutsches Herzzentrum MunchenMunichGermany
  17. 17.University HospitalZurichSwitzerland
  18. 18.Department of MedicineEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA
  19. 19.Department of MedicineWalter Reed Medical CenterWashingtonUSA
  20. 20.Baptist Cardiac and Vascular InstituteMiamiUSA
  21. 21.Department of RadiologyMedical University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  22. 22.Seoul National University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  23. 23.Department of Medicine and RadiologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  24. 24.Department of Medicine, Imaging, and Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Heart InstituteCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations