Use of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in Cardiac Risk Assessment for Non-cardiac Surgery

  • Gregory Jackson
  • Richard R. BayerIIEmail author
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)


Preoperative cardiac risk stratification is an important aspect in the clinical practice of internal medicine physicians, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and surgeons. Traditionally, if cardiac evaluation was deemed necessary, this was accomplished utilizing stress treadmill electrocardiography (ECG), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), or stress echocardiography (Ahn et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:661–8, 2013). In recent years, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has become an alternative method for the evaluation of coronary artery disease and has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to exclude significant coronary stenosis with an extremely high degree of sensitivity and negative predictive value (Achenbach et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:E1337, 2012; Meijboom et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:2135–44, 2008). Additionally, CCTA has demonstrated the ability to reclassify patients within the same risk category, has distinct advantages when compared to functional testing, and may be used to alter management of patients in the perioperative period. However, to date its use in the evaluation of preoperative cardiac risk stratification has not been well established (Ahn et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:661–8, 2013). In this chapter, the rationale for the use of CCTA in preoperative risk assessment is described.


Preoperative risk assessment Coronary computed tomography angiography Non-cardiac surgery Major adverse cardiac event 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Devereaux PJ, Goldman L, Cook DJ, Gilbert K, Leslie K, Guyatt GH. Perioperative cardiac events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a review of the magnitude of the problem, the pathophysiology of the events and methods to estimate and communicate risk. CMAJ. 2005;173:627–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldman L, Caldera DL, Nussbaum SR, et al. Multifactorial index of cardiac risk in noncardiac surgical procedures. N Engl J Med. 1977;297:845–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation. 1999;100:1043–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Detsky AS, Abrams HB, McLaughlin JR, et al. Predicting cardiac complications in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1:211–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1707–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahn JH, Park JR, Min JH, et al. Risk stratification using computed tomography coronary angiography in patients undergoing intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:661–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Achenbach S, Schuhbaeck A, Marwan M, et al. Multicenter evaluation of dual source ct coronary angiography in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery stenoses (medic): accuracy for the detection of individuals with significant coronary artery stenoses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:E1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ronan G, Wolk MJ, Bailey SR, et al. ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use criteria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:192–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee SP, Jang EJ, Kim YJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography in patients with chest pain: Comparison with myocardial single photon emission tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9:428–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria task force, the society of cardiovascular computed tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions, and the society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circulation. 2010;122:e525–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buffa V, De Cecco CN, Cossu L, et al. Preoperative coronary risk assessment with dual-source CT in patients undergoing noncoronary cardiac surgery. Radiol Med. 2010;115:1028–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silverman MG, Harkness JR, Blankstein R, et al. Baseline subclinical atherosclerosis burden and distribution are associated with frequency and mode of future coronary revascularization: multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:476–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Budoff MJ, Shaw LJ, Liu ST, et al. Long-term prognosis associated with coronary calcification: observations from a registry of 25,253 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1860–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kelkar AA, Schultz WM, Khosa F, et al. Long-term prognosis after coronary artery calcium scoring among low-intermediate risk women and men. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:e003742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hwang JW, Kim EK, Yang JH, et al. Assessment of perioperative cardiac risk of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery using coronary computed tomographic angiography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e002582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wijeysundera DN, Duncan D, Nkonde-Price C, et al. Perioperative beta blockade in noncardiac surgery: a systematic review for the 2014 ACC/AHA guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;130:2246–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kristensen SD, Knuuti J, Saraste A, et al. 2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management: The Joint Task Force on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2383–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen MC, Aretz TH. Histological analysis of coronary artery lesions in fatal postoperative myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Pathol. 1999;8:133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dawood MM, Gutpa DK, Southern J, Walia A, Atkinson JB, Eagle KA. Pathology of fatal perioperative myocardial infarction: implications regarding pathophysiology and prevention. Int J Cardiol. 1996;57:37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duvall WL, Sealove B, Pungoti C, Katz D, Moreno P, Kim M. Angiographic investigation of the pathophysiology of perioperative myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80:768–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chopra V, Wesorick DH, Sussman JB, et al. Effect of perioperative statins on death, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, and length of stay: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012;147:181–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Andersson C, Merie C, Jorgensen M, et al. Association of beta-blocker therapy with risks of adverse cardiovascular events and deaths in patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:336–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Group PS, Devereaux PJ, Yang H, et al. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1839–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chopra V, Plaisance B, Cavusoglu E, Flanders SA, Eagle KA. Perioperative beta-blockers for major noncardiac surgery: Primum Non Nocere. Am J Med. 2009;122:222–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akhtar NJ, Markowitz AH, Gilkeson RC. Multidetector computed tomography in the preoperative assessment of cardiac surgery patients. Radiol Clin N Am. 2010;48:117–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bastarrika G, Thilo C, Headden GF, Zwerner PL, Costello P, Schoepf UJ. Cardiac CT in the assessment of acute chest pain in the emergency department. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH, et al. Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1989–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA. 2012;308:1237–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Norgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Danad I, Szymonifka J, Twisk JW, et al. Diagnostic performance of cardiac imaging methods to diagnose ischaemia-causing coronary artery disease when directly compared with fractional flow reserve as a reference standard: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(13):991–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CardiologyMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  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

Personalised recommendations