Impact of 64-slice coronary CT on the management of patients presenting with acute chest pain: results of a prospective two-centre study
- 220 Downloads
Our two-centre prospective study evaluates the usefulness of 64-slice coronary computed tomography (CCT) to rule out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients admitted in emergency departments (ED) for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with low-to-intermediate risk score.
Patients (175) admitted for acute chest pain (ACP), unmodified electrocardiogram and first troponin measurement within normal ranges were included. A second troponin measurement and a 64-slice CCT within 24 h were performed. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were recorded during follow-up (6 months ± 2).
64-slice CCT was either normal or showed non-significant coronary stenosis in the majority of patients (78%). 64-slice CCT depicted significant stenosis (>50% diameter) in 22% of patient whereas initial clinical and biological evaluation was reassuring. For negative CCTs, elevated troponin at second measurement did not modify the strategy or treatment of patients. No MACEs were noted during follow up. In 12% of patients CCT identified unsuspected non-coronary abnormalities.
Our study confirms 64-slice CCT utility to rule out significant coronary artery stenosis in 8/10 patients admitted in ED with ACP or ACS with low-to-intermediate risk score. Early discharge with a negative 64-slice CCT is associated with very low risk of cardiac events at 6 months.
• 64-slice coronary computed tomography (CCT) offers a critical role in acute chest pain.
• 64-slice CCT allows differentiation between significant and non-significant coronary artery stenosis.
• Normal 64-slice CCT allows rapid discharge of patients with ACP.
• 64-slice CCT helps make appropriate therapeutic decision in patients with ACP.
KeywordsCoronary artery disease Acute coronary syndrome Computed tomorgraphy Risk stratification Chest pain clinic
This work was partially supported by the Société Française de Cardiologie, Paris (France). We thank Prof. Daniel Henkle (Senior Lecturer and Course Coordinator in Medical English, Université Paris Diderot) for editing and revision of the manuscript. We thank also the Department of Clinical Cardiology (Prof. P. Henry) and Emergency department (Prof. P. Plaisance and Dr S. Laribi) for their contribution and support to the study.
- 6.Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW et al (2002) ACC/AHA guideline update for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction—2002: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). Circulation 106:1893–1900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T et al (2007) Usefulness of 64-Slice cardiac computed tomographic angiography for diagnosing acute coronary syndromes and predicting clinical outcome in emergency department patients with chest pain of uncertain origin. Circulation 115:1762–1768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Valentin J (2007) Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). Ann ICRP 37:1–79Google Scholar
- 17.Mark DB, Berman DS, Budoff MJ et al (2010) ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT 2010 expert consensus document on coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation 121:2509–2543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar