Advertisement

The Challenging Patient

  • Damiano Caruso
  • Domenico De Santis
  • Taylor M. DuguayEmail author
  • Sheldon E. Litwin
  • Carlo N. De CeccoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)

Abstract

The aforementioned scenarios represent just some of the challenges that can be observed around the CT scanner in everyday practice. Despite being coined a “challenge,” the challenging patient represents an objective issue in clinical management. However, with the continuous technological and pharmacological advances in addition to an effective training of CT personnel, we are nowadays able to effectively face and overcome many of these issues, all in an effort to guarantee safe and adequate examinations for all patients.

Keywords

Coronary CT angiography and the difficult patient Difficult patient and coronary CT angiography Patients with a reduced renal function Elevated heart rates in coronary CT angiography Anxious patient and coronary CT angiography Obese patient and coronary CT angiography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Meinel FG, et al. Coronary computed tomographic angiography in clinical practice: state of the art. Radiol Clin N Am. 2015;53(2):287–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takx RA, et al. Computed tomography-derived parameters of myocardial morphology and function in black and white patients with acute chest pain. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117(3):333–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoffmann U, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria acute nonspecific chest pain-low probability of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(12 Pt A):1266–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bastarrika G, et al. CT of coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2009;253(2):317–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bastarrika G, Schoepf UJ. Evolving CT applications in ischemic heart disease. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;20(4):380–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Ballmoos MW, et al. Meta-analysis: diagnostic performance of low-radiation-dose coronary computed tomography angiography. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(6):413–20.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Cecco CN, et al. Beyond stenosis detection: computed tomography approaches for determining the functional relevance of coronary artery disease. Radiol Clin N Am. 2015;53(2):317–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruzsics B, et al. Comparison of dual-energy computed tomography of the heart with single photon emission computed tomography for assessment of coronary artery stenosis and of the myocardial blood supply. Am J Cardiol. 2009;104(3):318–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Varga-Szemes A, et al. CT myocardial perfusion imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(3):487–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caruso D, et al. Dynamic CT myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(10):1893–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jin KN, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging with dual energy CT. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(10):1914–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pelgrim GJ, et al. The dream of a one-stop-shop: meta-analysis on myocardial perfusion CT. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(12):2411–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flohr TG, et al. Computed tomographic assessment of coronary artery disease: state-of-the-art imaging techniques. Radiol Clin N Am. 2015;53(2):271–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flohr TG, et al. Pushing the envelope: new computed tomography techniques for cardiothoracic imaging. J Thorac Imaging. 2010;25(2):100–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taylor CM, Blum A, Abbara S. Patient preparation and scanning techniques. Radiol Clin N Am. 2010;48(4):675–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schussler JM, Grayburn PA. Non-invasive coronary angiography using multislice computed tomography. Heart. 2007;93(3):290–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kopp AF, et al. Coronary arteries: retrospectively ECG-gated multi-detector row CT angiography with selective optimization of the image reconstruction window. Radiology. 2001;221(3):683–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nieman K, et al. Coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography. Lancet. 2001;357(9256):599–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fuchs TA, et al. Impact of a new motion-correction algorithm on image quality of low-dose coronary CT angiography in patients with insufficient heart rate control. Acad Radiol. 2014;21(3):312–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang L, et al. Prospectively ECG-triggered sequential dual-source coronary CT angiography in patients with atrial fibrillation: influence of heart rate on image quality and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0134194.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yin WH, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenosis with sub-milliSievert radiation dose by prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch spiral CT angiography and iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(11):2927–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang LJ, et al. Feasibility of prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch coronary CT angiography with 30 mL iodinated contrast agent at 70 kVp: initial experience. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1537–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cecco CN, Schoepf UJ. Future of cardiac computed tomography. World J Radiol. 2015;7(12):421–3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mangold S, et al. Coronary CT angiography in obese patients using 3(rd) generation dual-source CT: effect of body mass index on image quality. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(9):2937–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Takx RA, et al. Sublingual nitroglycerin administration in coronary computed tomography angiography: a systematic review. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(12):3536–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shim SS, Kim Y, Lim SM. Improvement of image quality with beta-blocker premedication on ECG-gated 16-MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(2):649–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Celik O, et al. Single dose ivabradine versus intravenous metoprolol for heart rate reduction before coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in patients receiving long-term calcium channel-blocker therapy. Acta Radiol. 2014;55(6):676–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sabarudin A, Sun Z. Beta-blocker administration protocol for prospectively ECG-triggered coronary CT angiography. World J Cardiol. 2013;5(12):453–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pannu HK, Alvarez W Jr, Fishman EK. Beta-blockers for cardiac CT: a primer for the radiologist. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(6 Suppl 2):S341–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vorre MM, Abdulla J. Diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of CT coronary angiography in atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2013;267(2):376–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Ivabradine for treating chronic heart failure (NICE website). 2012. Published online at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta267/resources/ivabradine-for-treating-chronicheart-failure-pdf-82600557030853
  32. 32.
    Adile KK, et al. Safety and efficacy of oral ivabradine as a heart rate-reducing agent in patients undergoing CT coronary angiography. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1016):e424–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guaricci AI, et al. Incremental value and safety of oral ivabradine for heart rate reduction in computed tomography coronary angiography. Int J Cardiol. 2012;156(1):28–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lambrechtsen J, Egstrup K. Pre-treatment with a sinus node blockade, ivabradine, before coronary CT angiography: a retrospective audit. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(10):1054–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pichler P, et al. Ivabradine versus metoprolol for heart rate reduction before coronary computed tomography angiography. Am J Cardiol. 2012;109(2):169–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bayraktutan U, et al. Efficacy of ivabradin to reduce heart rate prior to coronary CT angiography: comparison with beta-blocker. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012;18(6):537–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morsbach F, et al. Performance of turbo high-pitch dual-source CT for coronary CT angiography: first ex vivo and patient experience. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(8):1889–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tao SM, et al. Contrast-induced nephropathy in CT: incidence, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(9):3310–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stacul F, et al. Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(12):2527–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ohno I, et al. Guidelines on the use of iodinated contrast media in patients with kidney disease 2012: digest version: JSN, JRS, and JCS Joint Working Group. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2013;17(4):441–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nozue T, et al. Contrast medium volume to estimated glomerular filtration rate ratio as a predictor of contrast-induced nephropathy developing after elective percutaneous coronary intervention. J Cardiol. 2009;54(2):214–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yuan R, et al. Reduced iodine load at CT pulmonary angiography with dual-energy monochromatic imaging: comparison with standard CT pulmonary angiography–a prospective randomized trial. Radiology. 2012;262(1):290–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhang LJ, et al. High-pitch coronary CT angiography at 70 kVp with low contrast medium volume: comparison of 80 and 100 kVp high-pitch protocols. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014;93(22):e92.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004;24(6):1679–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lee AM, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography at 140 kV versus 120 kV: assessment of image quality and radiation exposure in overweight and moderately obese patients. Acta Radiol. 2014;55(5):554–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gebhard C, et al. Image quality of low-dose CCTA in obese patients: impact of high-definition computed tomography and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29(7):1565–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Geyer LL, et al. State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology. 2015;276(2):339–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mangold S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography using 3rd-generation dual-source CT and automated tube voltage selection: clinical application in a non-obese and obese patient population. Eur Radiol. 2017 Jun;27(6):2298–308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jimenez-Juan L, et al. Failed heart rate control with oral metoprolol prior to coronary CT angiography: effect of additional intravenous metoprolol on heart rate, image quality and radiation dose. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29(1):199–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Maffei E, et al. “In-house” pharmacological management for computed tomography coronary angiography: heart rate reduction, timing and safety of different drugs used during patient preparation. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(12):2931–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cerqueira MD, et al. Effects of age, gender, obesity, and diabetes on the efficacy and safety of the selective A2A agonist regadenoson versus adenosine in myocardial perfusion imaging integrated ADVANCE-MPI trial results. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1(3):307–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kitt T, Jiang J. Serious complications associated with regadenoson administration for myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22(2):395.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Agarwal V, DePuey EG. Regadenoson and seizures: a real clinical concern. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21(5):869–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Adenoscan [package insert]. Northbrook: I.A., Inc.; 1995. Updated in 2014.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Goldberg RJ, et al. Prehospital delay in patients with acute coronary syndromes (from the global registry of acute coronary events [GRACE]). Am J Cardiol. 2009;103(5):598–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Spencer FA, et al. Delay to reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting to acute care hospitals: an international perspective. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(11):1328–36.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Grady EC, Barron JT, Wagner RH. Development of asystole requiring cardiac resuscitation after the administration of regadenoson in a patient with pulmonary fibrosis receiving n-acetylcysteine. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18(3):521–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    AlJaroudi WA, et al. Safety and tolerability of regadenoson in 514 SPECT MPI patients with and without coronary artery disease and submaximal exercise heart rate response. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(3):341–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hsi DH, et al. Regadenoson induced acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary thrombosis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20(3):481–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shah S, Parra D, Rosenstein RS. Acute myocardial infarction during regadenoson myocardial perfusion imaging. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33(6):e90–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Damiano Caruso
    • 1
  • Domenico De Santis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Taylor M. Duguay
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sheldon E. Litwin
    • 3
  • Carlo N. De Cecco
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncological and Pathological SciencesUniversity of Rome “Sapienza”LatinaItaly
  2. 2.Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological ScienceMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  3. 3.Division of Cardiology, Department of MedicineMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Radiology and Radiological ScienceMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations