Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Selection: When to Use Cardiac CT Versus Other Imaging or Non-imaging Tests

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
CT of the Heart

Part of the book series: Contemporary Medical Imaging ((CMI))

  • 2768 Accesses

Abstract

There is obviously no simple algorithm for deciding when and how cardiac CT should be used. One has to consider risk factors, pretest probability, clinical presentation, and other noninvasive test results to decide whether cardiac CTA is the best next step in patient management. The question should not be about one modality lording over another but, rather, how we can integrate cardiac CT best into the comprehensive multidisciplinary workup and management of cardiovascular diseases. It is also important to mention that professional society-driven appropriateness criteria cannot keep up with the incredible speed of scanner technology development and rapid advances in novel cardiac device utilization. Therefore, imagers have to maintain flexibility and be ready to take cardiac CTA even to previously uncharted territories for the benefit of our patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Taylor AJ, 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. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2010;4(6):407 e1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Expert Panel on Cardiac, I, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria(R) known or suspected congenital heart disease in the adult. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(5S):S166–76.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Expert Panel on Cardiac, I, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria(R) chronic chest pain-high probability of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(5S):S71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Expert Panel on Cardiac, I, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria(R) dyspnea-suspected cardiac origin. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(5S):S127–37.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain Writing, P, et al. 2015 ACR/ACC/AHA/AATS/ACEP/ASNC/NASCI/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR/SCPC/SNMMI/STR/STS appropriate utilization of cardiovascular imaging in emergency department patients with chest pain: a joint document of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Committee and the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(2):e1–e29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. White RD, et al. 2013 ACCF/ACR/ASE/ASNC/SCCT/SCMR appropriate utilization of cardiovascular imaging in heart failure: an executive summary: a joint report of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria (R) Committee and the ACCF Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(7):493–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dill KE, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria imaging for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(12):957–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Earls JP, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria asymptomatic patient at risk for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(1):12–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mammen L, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria(R) nonischemic myocardial disease with clinical manifestations (ischemic cardiomyopathy already excluded). J Thorac Imaging. 2014;29(4):W44–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meinel FG, et al. ECG-synchronized CT angiography in 324 consecutive pediatric patients: spectrum of indications and trends in radiation dose. Pediatr Cardiol. 2015;36(3):569–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meinel FG, et al. Radiation risks from cardiovascular imaging tests. Circulation. 2014;130(5):442–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vliegenthart R, Morris PB. Computed tomography coronary artery calcium scoring: review of evidence base and cost-effectiveness in cardiovascular risk prediction. J Thorac Imaging. 2012;27(5):296–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tesche C, et al. Accuracy and radiation dose reduction using low-voltage computed tomography coronary artery calcium scoring with tin filtration. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119(4):675–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hwang JW, et al. Assessment of perioperative cardiac risk of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery using coronary computed tomographic angiography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(3):e002582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morris MF, et al. Computed tomography as an alternative to catheter angiography prior to robotic mitral valve repair. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95(4):1354–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoffmann U, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(4):299–308.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Truong QA, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard emergency department evaluation for acute chest pain and diabetic patients: is there benefit with early coronary CT angiography? Results of the Randomized Comparative Effectiveness ROMICAT II Trial. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(3):e003137.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Rybicki FJ, et al. 2015 ACR/ACC/AHA/AATS/ACEP/ASNC/NASCI/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR/SCPC/SNMMI/STR/ STS appropriate utilization of cardiovascular imaging in emergency department patients with chest pain: a joint document of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Committee and the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(7):853–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. El-Hayek G, et al. Meta-analysis of coronary computed tomography angiography versus standard of care strategy for the evaluation of low risk chest pain: are randomized controlled trials and cohort studies showing the same evidence? Int J Cardiol. 2014;177(1):238–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee HY, Yoo SM, White CS. Coronary CT angiography in emergency department patients with acute chest pain: triple rule-out protocol versus dedicated coronary CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25(3):319–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hiratzka LF, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(14):e27–e129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hinzpeter R, Higashigaito K, Morsbach F, et al. Coronary artery calcium scoring for ruling-out acute coronary syndrome in chest pain CT. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(10):1565–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chaikriangkrai K, et al. Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium score in acute chest pain patients without known coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(6):659–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kwok Y, et al. Meta-analysis of exercise testing to detect coronary artery disease in women. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83(5):660–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Moss AJ, Newby DE. CT coronary angiographic evaluation of suspected anginal chest pain. Heart. 2016;102(4):263–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Investigators, S.-H. CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9985):2383–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moss AJ, et al. The updated NICE guidelines: cardiac CT as the first-line test for coronary artery disease. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep. 2017;10(5):15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Baldassarre LA, et al. Noninvasive imaging to evaluate women with stable ischemic heart disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(4):421–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Grani C, et al. Multimodality imaging in individuals with anomalous coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(4):471–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Baumgartner H, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(1):1–23. quiz 101-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lang RM, et al. Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18(12):1440–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Group, T.T.A.C.W, et al. ACCF/ASE/ACEP/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2007 appropriateness criteria for transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American Society of Echocardiography, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Endorsed by the American College of Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2007;20(7):787–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task, F, et al. ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 appropriate use criteria for echocardiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance American College of chest physicians. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011;24(3):229–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Han BK, et al. Computed tomography imaging in patients with congenital heart disease part I: rationale and utility. An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT): Endorsed by the Society of Pediatric Radiology (SPR) and the North American Society of Cardiac Imaging (NASCI). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(6):475–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hlavacek AM. Imaging of congenital cardiovascular disease: the case for computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging. 2010;25(3):247–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Warnes CA, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 guidelines for the management of adults with congenital heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to develop guidelines on the management of adults with congenital heart disease). Developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(23):e143–263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Li X, et al. Aortic valves stenosis and regurgitation: assessment with dual source computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25(6):591–600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schwitter J, et al. Superior diagnostic performance of perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus SPECT to detect coronary artery disease: the secondary endpoints of the multicenter multivendor MR-IMPACT II (Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary Artery Disease Trial). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. de Jong MC, et al. Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(9):1881–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Greenwood JP, et al. Comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography in women with suspected coronary artery disease from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease (CE-MARC) Trial. Circulation. 2014;129(10):1129–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gonzalez JA, et al. Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography, computed tomography perfusion, and computed tomography-fractional flow reserve in functional myocardial ischemia assessment versus invasive fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116(9):1469–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Rizvi A, Han D, Danad I, et al. Diagnostic performance of hybrid cardiac imaging methods for assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease compared with stand-alone coronary computed tomography angiography: a Meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(4):589–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Takx RA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging compared to invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(1):e002666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nielsen LH, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography vs. conventional functional testing in patients with stable angina pectoris: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15(9):961–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Truong QA, et al. Sex differences in the effectiveness of early coronary computed tomographic angiography compared with standard emergency department evaluation for acute chest pain: the rule-out myocardial infarction with Computer-Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT)-II Trial. Circulation. 2013;127(25):2494–502.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Garrett KG, et al. Residents’ performance in the interpretation of on-call “triple-rule-out” CT studies in patients with acute chest pain. Acad Radiol. 2014;21(7):938–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chong FY, et al. Negative coronary CT angiography for chest pain assessment predicts low event rate in 5 years. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2012;56(1):55–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hoffmann U, et al. Prognostic value of noninvasive cardiovascular testing in patients with stable chest pain: insights from the PROMISE trial (prospective multicenter imaging study for evaluation of chest pain). Circulation. 2017;135(24):2320–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Pal Spruill Suranyi, Akos Varga-Szemes & Richard R. Bayer II

  2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Pal Spruill Suranyi, Richard R. Bayer II, Salvatore A. Chiaramida, Peter L. Zwerner & David Gregg

  3. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA

    Marques L. Bradshaw

Authors
  1. Pal Spruill Suranyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akos Varga-Szemes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marques L. Bradshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard R. Bayer II
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Salvatore A. Chiaramida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter L. Zwerner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Gregg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pal Spruill Suranyi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Center for Advanced Imaging Research (CAIR), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    U. Joseph Schoepf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Humana Press

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Suranyi, P.S. et al. (2019). Patient Selection: When to Use Cardiac CT Versus Other Imaging or Non-imaging Tests. In: Schoepf, U. (eds) CT of the Heart. Contemporary Medical Imaging. Humana, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-237-7_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-237-7_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-60327-236-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60327-237-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation