Coronary CT Angiography
No Results
No Results
processing….
Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a noninvasive method to image the coronary arteries. Applications include the following:
Diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD)
Diagnosis of in-stent restenosis
Evaluation of coronary bypass graft patency
Based on the combined efforts of 9 specialty societies, [1] the following indications were rated as appropriate for CCTA:
Detection of CAD in symptomatic patients without known heart disease, either nonacute or acute presentations
Detection of CAD in patients with new-onset or newly diagnosed clinical heart failure and no prior CAD
Preoperative coronary assessment prior to noncoronary cardiac surgery
Patients with prior electrocardiographic exercise testing – Normal test with continued symptoms or intermediate risk Duke treadmill score
Patients with prior stress imaging procedures – Discordant electrocardiographic exercise and imaging results or equivocal stress imaging results
Evaluation of new or worsening symptoms in the setting of a past normal stress imaging study
Risk assessment post-revascularization – Symptomatic if post-coronary artery bypass grafting or asymptomatic with prior left main coronary stent of 3 mm or greater
Evaluation of cardiac structure and function in adult congenital heart disease
Evaluation of cardiac structure and function – Ventricular morphology and systolic function
Evaluation of cardiac structure and function – Intracardiac and extracardiac structures
Dual-source CT-scanning
The primary advantage of dual-source CT scanning is greater temporal resolution, which allows CCTA to be performed at higher heart rates without the use of beta blockers.
256- and 320-slice CT scanning
The primary advantage of 256- and 320-slice CT is the increased craniocaudal coverage. In a comparison of prospectively gated 64- and 256-slice CT scanning, the 256-slice scan provided better and more stable image quality, at equivalent effective radiation dose. [2]
The reported effective radiation doses for retrospectively gated, single-source, 64-slice CT scanning have ranged from 9.5-21.4 mSv. [3] However, various technologies and techniques have made it possible to lower the dose to less than 5 mSv, and doses of less than 1 mSv are possible in some patients.
At the author’s institution, patients are instructed to avoid caffeine and smoking 12 hours prior to the procedure to avoid cardiac stimulation. They are also instructed to avoid eating solid food 4 hours before the study and to increase fluid intake prior to the exam. Standard precautions with regard to contrast allergy history and renal function are taken.
Beta blockers
Beta-blocker administration is often helpful in cardiac CT scanning to lower the heart rate and decrease motion artifact. The level to which the heart rate should be lowered depends on the temporal resolution of the scan.
However, heart rate variability may be a more important determinant of image quality than absolute heart rate. [4] Beta blockers are also helpful in patients with irregular heart rates, supraventricular tachycardias, and arrhythmias.
Several contraindications to beta-blocker therapy exist, including a heart rate below 60 bpm, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, and decompensated cardiac failure, among others.
Nitroglycerin
The administration of sublingual nitroglycerin dilates the coronary arteries and increases side branch visualization. [5] Nitroglycerin is contraindicated in patients who are allergic to it and in patients who are taking phosphodiesterase inhibitors for erectile dysfunction. [6] Patients should not have taken a phosphodiesterase inhibitor for at least 48 hours before the exam.
Nitroglycerin can cause orthostatic hypotension; it should be used with caution in patients who have low systolic blood pressure (eg, < 90 mm Hg) and who are volume depleted from diuretic therapy. Angina caused by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy can also be aggravated.
Artifacts include the following:
Stairstep artifacts: Associated with heart rate variability [4] (see the image below)
Coronary artery motion artifacts: Result in image blurring (see the image below)
Respiratory motion artifacts
Streak artifacts: Can result from beam hardening secondary to metal clips or can be caused by dense contrast
Blooming artifacts: Can cause small, high-contrast structures such as stents and calcium to appear larger than they are [4] (see the image below)
The coronary arteries are optimally imaged when there is the least cardiac motion. This occurs during so-called rest periods, which is typically in middiastole (diastasis). Coronary motion is also minimal during end-systole (isovolumic relaxation), but this is of shorter duration than diastolic diastasis at low heart rates.
A variety of postprocessing techniques are useful in CCTA. [7] Many interpreting physicians will start with the axial source images and then utilize multiplanar reconstructions in at least 2 planes.
There are many different methods to grade the degree of stenosis, including the following:
Visual assessment
Manually determined diameter or cross-sectional area on multiplanar reformats perpendicular to the median centerline of the vessel (“end-on” view)
Diameter on maximum intensity projection (MIP) images parallel to the long axis of the vessel
Software calculation of diameter or area [8]
Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has recently emerged as an effective noninvasive method to image the coronary arteries. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of clinical applications, technology, anatomy, and interpretation, and it includes material of interest to radiologists, cardiologists, physicians in training, and referring physicians. Physicians interpreting CCTA studies should be aware of the American College of Cardiology [9] and American College of Radiology [10] guidelines for training. [11]
Calcium scoring and coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography (CCTA) have different clinical indications. Calcium scoring is primarily used for risk stratification of asymptomatic patients, while CCTA is primarily used in patients with acute or chronic chest pain. One potential use of performing a nonenhanced calcium scoring study before a CCTA is to decide whether to proceed with CCTA in patients with extensive coronary calcium. There is no established calcium score cutoff value above which CCTA will not be diagnostic, but a score of 1000 is often used.
In the multicenter Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography (ACCURACY) trial, [12] the specificity of CCTA was significantly reduced (from 86% to 53%) in patients with calcium scores greater than 400. However, in a meta-analysis of 51 studies [13] published in 2012, the accuracy of CCTA for significant stenoses was high, even in cases of severe coronary calcification, as long as 64-slice or new CT systems were used.
In symptomatic patients with low-to-intermediate pretest probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) (the categories for which CCTA has been endorsed), a negative coronary CTA shows a very high negative predictive value, independent of the coronary calcium score. In addition, the calcium score does not influence the result of the CCTA when it is considered positive for obstructive CAD. [14]
See the image below.
A 2008 scientific statement from the American Heart Association (AHA) [15] indicates that the potential benefit of noninvasive coronary angiography is likely to be the greatest for symptomatic patients who are at intermediate risk for coronary artery disease (CAD) after initial risk stratification, including patients with equivocal stress tests. CCTA is recommended over coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) because of superior diagnostic accuracy. [16]
Neither coronary CTA nor magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is recommended to screen for CAD in patients who have no signs or symptoms suggestive of CAD. In 7590 individuals without chest pain syndrome or history of CAD in the CONFIRM registry, the additional risk-predictive advantage of CCTA was not clinically meaningful compared with a risk model based on coronary calcium score alone. [17]
Results from the multicenter CONFIRM registry support that CCTA can be used effectively as a gatekeeper to invasive coronary angiography. [18]
Appropriateness criteria were published in 2010 from the combined efforts of 9 specialty societies. [1] The following indications (see the article for specific indications within the broad categories below) were rated as appropriate for CCTA:
Detection of CAD in symptomatic patients without known heart disease, either nonacute or acute presentations
Detection of CAD in patients with new onset or newly diagnosed clinical heart failure and no prior CAD
Preoperative coronary assessment prior to noncoronary cardiac surgery
Patients with prior ECG exercise testing – Normal test with continued symptoms or intermediate risk Duke treadmill score
Patients with prior stress imaging procedures – Discordant electrocardiographic (ECG) exercise and imaging results or equivocal stress imaging results
Evaluation of new or worsening symptoms in the setting of a past normal stress imaging study
Risk assessment post revascularization – Symptomatic if post coronary artery bypass grafting or asymptomatic with prior left main coronary stent greater than or equal to 3 mm
Evaluation of cardiac structure and function in adult congenital heart disease
Evaluation of cardiac structure and function – Ventricular morphology and systolic function
Evaluation of cardiac structure and function – Intracardiac and extracardiac structures
In a multicenter trial [19] of 1000 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes, incorporation of CCTA into the triage strategy improved the efficiency of clinical decision making (significantly higher rates of discharge from the ED and reduced mean length of hospital stay) compared with standard evaluation. However, incorporation of CCTA resulted in an increase in downstream testing and radiation exposure with no decrease in overall costs of care. In a meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials, [20] the use of CCTA in the ED was associated with decreased ED cost and length of stay but a 2% increase in invasive coronary angiography and revascularization (whether the increased rate of invasive procedures leads to improved patient outcomes is unknown).
Data as to the cost-effectiveness of CCTA are limited. Two analyses [21, 22] and one multicenter trial [23] suggest that CCTA may be a more cost-effective alternative to myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. CCTA may be a cost-effective method of avoiding unnecessary conventional coronary angiography in patients with a pretest probability of disease 50% or lower. [24]
The majority of studies (with the exception of the Coronary Evaluation Using Multidetector Spiral Computed Tomography Angiography using 64 Detectors [CORE 64] study) indicate that a negative CCTA can effectively rule out obstructive coronary artery disease. In a 2008 meta-analysis, [21] 64-slice CCTA had a sensitivity of 99% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% for patient-based detection of significant CAD. However the specificity has been lower than the sensitivity in most studies, and false-positive results are possible, particularly in patients with high calcium scores.
In the Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography (ACCURACY) prospective multicenter trial of patients with chest pain without known CAD and intermediate disease prevalence, 64-slice CCTA had a patient-based sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 83% in detecting stenosis of 70% or greater (comparable values were seen at a 50% stenosis level). Patients with high calcium scores were not excluded from the study. Calcium scores greater than 400 reduced specificity significantly. The NPV of CCTA was 99%. [12]
In the CORE trial, 64 prospective multicenter trial of patients with suspected symptomatic CAD referred for conventional coronary angiography, 64-slice CCTA had a patient–based sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 90% (excluding patients with a calcium score greater than 600) for detecting stenoses 50% or greater. However, the NPV of 83% in this study was lower than in other studies. [25]
In a 2008 meta-analysis, the sensitivity was highest in the left main artery and lowest (85%) in the circumflex artery. [21]
In a systematic review that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA for detecting cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) compared with conventional coronary angiography (CCAG) alone or with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), Wever-Pinzon et al found that CCTA had high sensitivity, specificity, and NPV for the detection of any CAV and significant CAV. [26] When 64-slice was compared with 16-slice CCTA, a trend toward improved sensitivity and NPV for identifying significant CAV was noted.
The ACCURACY trial suggested that, compared with other noninvasive modalities such as stress echocardiography and stress nuclear testing, CCTA has comparable specificity but superior sensitivity and NPV. [12]
In the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial, [27] a strategy of initial CCTA showed no mprovement in clinical outcomes over a median follow-up of 2 years compared with functional testing. The investigators randomized 10,003 symptomatic patients to initial testing with eiher CCTA or functional testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress testing, or stress echocardiography). Although more patients in the CCTA group than the functional testing group underwent catheterization within 90 days, those in CCTA group also had with fewer catheterizations showing no obstructive CAD. [27]
In appropriateness criteria published in 2010 from 9 specialty societies, [1] the use of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography (CCTA) in patients with a history of percutaneous revascularization with stents of 3 mm or greater and chest pain syndrome was rated as uncertain, and it was rated as appropriate in asymptomatic patients. A 2010 consensus statement [28] states that in patients known to have larger stents and whose clinical presentation suggests low-to-intermediate probability for restenosis, 64-slice CCTA may be a reasonable alternative to invasive angiography to rule out significant in-stent restenosis. See the image below.
Visualization of the stent lumen by CCTA is variable.
In a meta-analysis, the sensitivity and specificity of 64-slice CCTA for the detection of coronary in-stent restenosis (>50%) were 90% and 91%, respectively, not including nonassessable stents; 89% of stents were assessable. [29]
Stent size and material can affect evaluability by CCTA. Stents under 3 mm are often nonassessable. [30] Magnesium is the most favorable stent material for imaging. [31] Stainless-steel and cobalt stents are also favorable. [32] Other factors that can potentially limit stent evaluability include overlapping positioning, strut thickness, and large patient size.
Note the following:
Contrast opacification of the artery distal to the stent cannot be used as an indicator of stent patency, as collateral vessels may feed the vessel distal to an occluded stent.
Edge-enhancing filters can increase spatial resolution and decrease blooming artifact, and they are often helpful in evaluating coronary stents. However, the use of these filters increases image noise. Optimizing intraluminal contrast enhancement can counterbalance increased image noise. [33]
It is difficult to evaluate stents in large patients because of increased image noise and decreased vascular opacification. The upper limit of the patient’s body mass index (BMI) should be 35-40 kg/m2. [34]
Wide window settings are helpful in evaluating the in-stent lumen. Pugliese et al recommend a window width of 1500 Hounsfield units (HU) and a window center of 300 HU. [33]
The positive predictive value of diagnosing in-stent restenosis can be low, particularly in small stents, where false-positive results are often seen. [33]
Left main stents are often evaluable due to their relatively large size.
Stent fractures can be accurately detected by CCTA. [35]
According to appropriateness criteria published in 2010 from 9 specialty societies, the use of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography (CCTA) in patients to evaluate bypass graft patency in patients with chest pain syndrome was rated as appropriate, and it was rated as inappropriate in asymptomatic patients less than 5 years after surgery, and it was rated uncertain in asymptomatic patients more than 5 years after surgery. [1] See the images below.
In a 2007 consensus statement from the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography and the North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, stress nuclear testing or echocardiography was suggested as the first method of evaluation rather than CCTA, as the question of graft patency is not as important as the functional significance of the grafts and bypass vessels. CCTA was suggested for reoperation bypass mapping of the previous bypass grafts, the setting of aortic dissection, difficult catheterization, or high risk of catheterization (eg, Marfan syndrome). [34]
Bypass grafts are well visualized by CCTA. In a meta-analysis, [36] 16- and 64-slice CCTA had a sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 97% for coronary artery bypass graft stenosis or occlusion; 92% of bypass grafts were evaluable. However, the accuracy for evaluating the coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) anastomoses [37] is less than that for other CABG segments.
Note the following:
Artifact from surgical clips can limit graft evaluation by CCTA. The distal anastomosis in particular can be difficult to assess due to motion and/or clip artifacts.
The most challenging aspect of CCTA in post-CABG patients is often evaluation of the native vessels. In one study, 29% of native vessel segments could not be evaluated in CABG patients. [37]
Proximity of the graft(s) to the sternum should be described to avoid damage during a redo sternotomy. If the graft abuts the sternum, the position of the graft relative to the sternal notch should be reported. [38]
In patients with internal mammary grafts, the scan should extend superiorly to the level of the clavicle so that subclavian stenosis can be ruled out.
A full discussion of multidetector computed tomography (CT) technology is beyond the scope of this article, but is well addressed in other literature. [39, 40, 41] The 2 major recent advancements in multidetector CT technology are dual-source 64-slice CT and single-source 256- and 320-slice CT. Both of these techniques offer the possibility of reduced radiation dose compared with single-source 64-slice CT. Dual-source CT allows coronary CT angiography (CCTA) to be performed at higher heart rates. Currently, there is little published literature on 256- or 320-slice CCTA.
The primary advantage of dual-source CT is greater temporal resolution.
A dual-source CT contains 2 tube/detector sets, arranged at 90º angles to each other. In CCTA, the data are typically reconstructed from a 180º rotation (partial scan reconstruction) to maximize temporal resolution. If the gantry rotation time is 330 msec, a single-source CT performing CCTA with partial scan reconstruction has a temporal resolution of 165 msec. With 2 tubes, only a quarter rotation is needed for data collection, and the temporal resolution is 83 msec.
The higher temporal resolution of dual-source CT allows CCTA to be performed at higher heart rates without the use of beta blockers.
Although the tube current is doubled with 2 tubes, the scan time is halved, and the tube current-time product (mAs) is unchanged as compared with single-source CT. [42] However, radiation dose can usually be lower than that with single-source CT. Because of higher temporal resolution, the pitch can be increased at higher heart rates, which will decrease dose (see Radiation Dose). In addition, other dose-reduction techniques, such as ECG-dependent tube current modulation and prospectively triggered sequential scanning (see Radiation Dose), can be optimally used with the increased temporal resolution of a dual-source scanner.
In addition, simultaneous data acquisition can be performed with the tubes operating at different voltages (80 kV and 140 kV). [42] This offers the possibility of improved tissue differentiation, but it is unclear what impact this will have on CCTA.
In a meta-analysis of 25 studies, [43] dual-source CT had a per-patient sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 89%. Accuracy remained high in a systematic review of the use of dual-source CT in difficult-to-image patient groups. [44]
In an in vitro evaluation of in-stent lumen visibility of 27 commonly used modern coronary stents, Gassenmaier et al reported that use of third-generation dual-source CTA enables stent lumen visibility of up to 80% in metal stents and 100% in bioresorbable stents. CTA may be a valid alternative for detection of in-stent restenosis. [45]
The primary advantage of 256- and 320-slice CT is the increased craniocaudal coverage.
The 256- and 320-slice CT scanners have a craniocaudal coverage of approximately 12 and 16 cm, respectively. This potentially allows the heart to be scanned in one tube rotation and one heartbeat, without table movement. This technique is ideal for the prospectively triggered sequential scan technique, [46] which substantially reduces radiation dose compared with retrospectively gated helical techniques (see Radiation Dose). If the prospectively triggered technique is used, heart rate control is useful, as a slower heart rate allows a narrower phase window to be used, [47] further decreasing radiation dose. Another advantage is that if the data can be acquired in one heartbeat, phase misregistration artifacts arising from irregular heartbeats are not an issue.
In a comparison of prospectively gated 64- and 256-slice CT, 256-slice CT provided significantly improved and more stable image quality compared with 64-slice CT, at equivalent effective radiation dose. [2]
Attention has been drawn to the risk of cancer from computed tomography. In these discussions, coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography (CCTA) is often cited for its high radiation dose. For example, in a review by Smith-Bindman et al, [48] it was estimated that 1 in 270 women, and 1 in 600 men, who underwent CCTA at age 40 would develop cancer from that scan. However, these figures do not take into account recent technological developments that can greatly decrease the radiation dose from CCTA.
There are several things that are important to note. First, the radiation dose from CCTA is highly variable and is largely dependent upon the specific equipment and techniques used. For example, one study suggests that use of a prospectively triggered technique reduced the risk of cancer by 87%, compared to a retrospectively gated technique. [49] Therefore, it is very important for the practitioner to understand ways of reducing the radiation dose to the patient. Other examinations that might be used instead of CCTA, such as cardiac nuclear medicine studies, have relatively high radiation doses. In addition, noninvasive examinations such as CCTA have the potential to reduce the use of coronary catheterization, which is invasive and involves relatively high radiation doses. In a study of 398,978 patients who underwent elective coronary catheterization, [50] only 37.6% had obstructive coronary disease.
Examinations that do not utilize ionizing radiation, such as stress echocardiography, could also be considered. A decision analytic model suggests that stress echocardiography followed by CCTA if needed is most appropriate for evaluation of patients with a pretest probability for coronary artery disease of less than 20%, while CCTA alone is more appropriate for intermediate-risk patients. [51]
Radiation doses for CCTA studies, if performed with retrospective gating in helical mode, are typically relatively high. Radiation doses are high because data are acquired throughout the cardiac cycle, and with the fast gantry rotation required for high temporal resolution in CCTA, a low pitch (table travel per gantry rotation/collimation) is required in order to avoid gaps in the data. If data are acquired throughout the cardiac cycle, the table should not move more than the beam width during one cardiac cycle. In particular, slow movement is required with fast gantry rotation; otherwise, all phases of the heart at a specific location will not be seen by the detector. As pitch is inversely related to radiation dose, a low pitch results in a high radiation dose. [40]
The reported radiation doses for CCTA vary depending on the specific technology and techniques employed. With retrospectively gated single-source 64-slice CT, the reported effective radiation doses have ranged from 9.5 to 21.4 mSv. [3] However, using many of the technologies and techniques discussed below, it is possible to lower the dose to less than 5 mSv, and doses less than 1 mSv are currently possible in some patients. For comparison, the average yearly background radiation dose is around 3 mSv, and a chest x-ray dose is 0.05 mSv. [15] Depending on the technique, CCTA may have a higher or lower effective dose than conventional coronary angiography (3.1-9.4 mSv). However, the dose from a cardiac single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan performed using technetium-99m is typically high (8 -17.5 mSv).
A variety of methods exist for decreasing radiation dose from cardiac CT. [52] In general, radiation dose from a CT scan can be reduced by reducing tube current, reducing tube voltage, or increasing pitch.
Anatomic-based tube current modulation can be performed where the tube current is adjusted for patient size and shape. However, a more effective method of dose reduction is electrocardiograph (ECG)-dependent tube current modulation. As the best image quality for CCTA is typically obtained at the specific phase of the R-R interval (usually mid- to end-diastole), the tube current (and thus dose) can be reduced in the phases where image quality is not optimal. [52] This is the most common method to reduce radiation dose. The primary disadvantage of this technique is that optimal functional imaging is not possible because of poor image quality in the portions of the cardiac cycle where lower tube current was used. The use of ECG-dependent dose modulation can result in a 20-50% decrease in radiation dose. [3] This technique can be optimally used with dual-source CT, as the time requiring the highest tube current is shorter.
Slow and steady heart rates are necessary for effective ECG-dependent dose modulation. At high heart rates, the period of reduced tube output (diastolic duration) becomes shorter relative to the cardiac cycle. With irregular heart rates, the optimal time point in the cardiac cycle to apply the full tube current is less predictable.
Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) guidelines [53] recommend ECG-based, tube-current modification in retrospective gated studies, except in patients with highly irregular heart rhythms.
Reducing the tube voltage (from 120 kV to 100 or 80 kV) will reduce the radiation dose. Another advantage is that opacification of the blood vessels may increase at lower kV because of an increase in the photoelectric effect. [3] The primary disadvantage is increased image noise. SCCT guidelines [53] recommend a tube potential of 100 kV for patients weighing no more than 90 kg or with a body mass index of no more than 30 kg/m2. A tube potential of 120 kV is indicated for larger patients, and even higher tube potentials may be indicated for severely obese patients.
With dual-source scanners, the pitch can be increased at high heart rates to reduce radiation dose.
Increasing the pitch will decrease the radiation dose, as the patient is exposed to radiation for a shorter period of time. The pitch can be increased at higher heart rates, because the time necessary to collect data throughout the cardiac cycle is decreased when the R-R interval is shorter.
However, single-source scanners typically do not allow pitch to be increased at high heart rates. Single-source scanners usually need to utilize multisegment reconstruction to increase temporal resolution at high heart rates, and multisegment reconstruction requires a low pitch. In this technique, the data required for image reconstruction are selected from multiple sequential heart cycles. This technique requires retrospective gating and a regular heart rate. [39] For data from several cardiac cycles to be used for image reconstruction, the same position has to be covered by the detector during consecutive cardiac cycles. Thus, the pitch must be lowered, which will increase radiation dose. Multisegment reconstruction is effective in improving temporal resolution only at specific heart rates (the heart rate and gantry rotation time need to be desynchronized).
A dual-source scanner has greater temporal resolution, and multisegment reconstruction is not necessary at high heart rates. This allows the pitch to be increased, and dose decreased, at higher heart rates.
Coronary CT angiography is usually performed with retrospective ECG gating, where scanning occurs throughout the cardiac cycle and simultaneously acquired ECG data are used retrospectively during image reconstruction. The acquisition of data throughout the cardiac cycle increases radiation dose. In addition, the scan is performed helically with a low pitch, resulting in substantial tissue overlap during scanning, as well as increasing radiation dose. [39]
With prospective ECG triggering, the data are acquired at a specific point in the R-R interval. The scanner acquires data sequentially (“step and shoot”) rather than in helical mode. Radiation dose is decreased, as data are not acquired throughout the cardiac cycle, and there is minimal tissue overlap with a sequential scan technique. This technique is standard for coronary artery calcium scoring but can be used to reduce radiation dose substantially during CCTA. Using a prospectively triggered sequential scan technique, Earls et al achieved an 83% reduction in dose as compared to the retrospective gated technique. [3]
The primary disadvantage of this technique is the lack of functional data. In addition, as data are only available from predefined phases of the R-R interval, reconstructions from additional phases to improve image quality are not possible.
This technique is optimal in patients with a low and stable heart rate. [54, 55] High heart rates are not optimal for this technique, as reconstructions at multiple phases during the R-R cycle are sometimes needed. With irregular heart rates, the acquisitions may be triggered at different points in the R-R interval.
Prospective ECG triggering is optimal for 256- or 320-slice CT, where the entire heart could potentially be scanned in one tube rotation and one heartbeat. This obviates the issue of phase misregistration in patients with irregular heart rates. In one study, the median effective radiation dose of 320-slice CT was 4.2 mSv, [56] which was lower than an 8.5 mSv median dose from catheter angiography performed in the same patients. Prospective ECG triggering is also well suited for use with dual-source CT, as the increased temporal resolution may allow the technique to be used at a higher heart rate threshold. [54]
In a meta-analysis of 20 studies [57] in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and without tachyarrhythmia, prospectively triggered CCTA provided image quality and diagnostic accuracy comparable to retrospectively gated CTA, but at a much lower radiation dose (3.5 mSv average compared with 12.3 mSv).
SCCT guidelines [53] state that prospective ECG triggering should be used in patients who have stable sinus rhythm and low heart rates (typically < 60-65 beats per minute). The width of the data acquisition window should be kept to a minimum. Retrospective gating is recommended for patients who do not qualify for prospective scanning due to irregular rhythms or high heart rates.
Iterative reconstruction is a new CT reconstruction technique that reduces image noise, which then allows radiation dose to be decreased. Interactive reconstruction has been shown to both reduce image noise and improve image quality. [58]
In one study, 320-slice CT, prospective gating, iterative reconstruction and automated exposure control were used in conjunction with lower radiation dose in 107 consecutive patients. [59] The dosage was less than 4 mSv for 96% of the patients and less than 1 mSv for 54% of the patients. For comparison, the average yearly background radiation dose is around 3 mSv.
At our institution, patients are instructed to avoid caffeine and smoking 12 hours prior to the procedure to avoid cardiac stimulation. They are also instructed to avoid eating solid food 4 hours before the study and to increase fluid intake prior to the study. Standard precautions with regard to contrast allergy history and renal function are taken.
Beta-blocker administration is often helpful in cardiac computed tomography (CT) to lower the heart rate and decrease motion artifact. The level to which the heart rate should be lowered depends on the temporal resolution of the scan. With single-source CT scanners, it is usually helpful to lower heart rate below 65 beats per minute (bpm), and ideally below 60 bpm. Dual-source CT scanners have higher temporal resolution and can be performed at heart rates of up to 90 bpm, obviating the need for beta blockers in many cases. Cardiac MRI has higher temporal resolution than CT and can be performed without beta blockers.
However, heart rate variability may be a more important determinant of image quality than absolute heart rate. [4] Beta blockers are also helpful in patients with irregular heart rates, supraventricular tachycardias, and arrhythmias. For example, in atrial fibrillation, the negative chronotropic and dromotropic effects can lengthen diastole. [60]
Possible contraindications to beta-blocker administration include the following [6, 60] :
Heart rate slower than 60 bpm
Systolic blood pressure lower than 100 mm Hg
Asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on beta2 -agonist inhaler
Active bronchospasm
Second- or third-degree atrioventricular block
Sick sinus syndrome
Decompensated cardiac failure
Pheochromocytoma (can be given in combination with an alpha blocker if the alpha blocker has been initiated beforehand)
Allergy to beta blockers
Beta blockers should be used with caution in patients with severe peripheral vascular disease and in patients taking calcium channel blockers.
Metoprolol is a frequently used beta blocker for coronary CT angiography (CCTA). The effects of an oral dose are seen within 1 hour after administration, with peak plasma concentration at 90 minutes. [60] IV-push metoprolol has a peak effect 5-10 minutes after administration.
There are many different protocols for metoprolol administration. An oral dose of 50-100 mg can be administered 60-90 minutes before the study. [60, 61] If this does not lower the heart rate to the desired level, 5-mg doses of IV metoprolol can be administered at 3- to 5-minute intervals, up to a total dose of 15-30 mg. [60, 61]
Atenolol [61] and esmolol [62] have also been successfully used.
Diltiazem or verapamil can also be used in patients in whom beta blockade is contraindicated, although these are less effective and result in more hypotension. [61] These drugs can also be used in combination with a very low dose of metoprolol.
The administration of sublingual nitroglycerin dilates the coronary arteries and increases side branch visualization. [5] Nitroglycerin is contraindicated in patients who are allergic to it and in patients who are taking phosphodiesterase inhibitors for erectile dysfunction. [6] Patients should not have taken a phosphodiesterase inhibitor for at least 48 hours before the exam. The concomitant use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors can cause severe hypotension. Nitroglycerin can cause orthostatic hypotension and should be used with caution in patients who have low systolic blood pressure (eg, < 90 mm Hg) and who are volume depleted from diuretic therapy. Angina caused by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy can also be aggravated.
Stairstep artifacts are associated with heart rate variability. [4] With irregular heart rates, phase misregistration can occur when data from different cardiac phases are used for reconstruction. A stairstep appearance results from the data reconstructed from different cardiac phases.
Beta blockers are helpful in reducing heart rate variability and avoiding stairstep artifacts. Manual electrocardiographic (ECG) editing can also be helpful. With 256- and 320-slice computed tomography (CT) scanning, stairstep artifacts should not be seen if the heart is scanned in one heartbeat.
Artifacts from motion of the coronary arteries result in image blurring. The right coronary artery is often most affected by motion artifact.
General strategies to decrease motion artifact are to increase the time during the cardiac cycle where there is the least motion and to image as quickly as possible (increase temporal resolution).
Motion can be minimized by reconstructing the data during a phase where there is minimal motion. Choosing the optimal phase of the R-R cycle to reconstruct the data is discussed in the image reconstruction section, below. Decreasing the heart rate with beta blockers has the advantages of decreasing the motion velocity of the coronary arteries [4] and increasing the relative and absolute duration of the diastolic rest period in the cardiac cycle.
Temporal resolution can be increased in 2 ways. Dual-source CT scanners have substantially higher temporal resolution. With a single-source scanner, one way to increase temporal resolution, typically used in patients with higher heart rates, is to use a multiple-segment reconstruction technique. In this technique, the data required for image reconstruction are selected from multiple sequential heart cycles. This technique requires retrospective gating and a regular heart rate. [4] For data from several cardiac cycles to be used for image reconstruction, the same position has to be covered by the detector during consecutive cardiac cycles. Thus, the pitch must be lowered, which will increase radiation dose. Multi-segment reconstruction is only effective in improving temporal resolution at specific heart rates (the heart rate and gantry rotation time need to be desynchronized).
Arrhythmias present a challenge for CCTA because of both high and irregular heart rates, and both stairstep and motion artifacts can be seen. Atrial fibrillation has sometimes been considered a relative contraindication to the performance of CCTA. However, in recent studies, CCTA has been successfully performed in patients with atrial fibrillation by using dual-source CT and end-systolic reconstruction and by using single-source 64-slice CT with ECG-editing [63] and middiastolic reconstruction. [64]
Most patients can breath-hold for the time necessary to complete a CCTA study. A Valsalva maneuver should be avoided, as this can decrease inflow into the right atrium and decrease contrast enhancement. [4] Respiratory motion artifact can be recognized on the lung windows and is most prominent on coronal and sagittal images.
Streak artifacts from beam hardening can be seen secondary to metal clips. Streak artifact in the superior vena cava and right atrium from dense contrast can limit evaluation of the right coronary artery. This can be mitigated by the use of a saline bolus chaser. However, a saline bolus chaser can result in poor contrast opacification of the right heart lumen, which may limit morphologic and functional evaluation. Protocols that utilize an admixture of saline and contrast are helpful in maintaining right heart opacification without streak artifact.
Blooming artifacts can cause small high-contrast structures such as stents and calcium to appear larger than they are. [4] Edge-enhancing kernel filters can decrease blooming artifacts and may be helpful for evaluating a stent lumen, although image noise is increased.
The coronary arteries are optimally imaged when there is the least cardiac motion. This occurs during so-called rest periods, which is typically in middiastole (diastasis). Coronary motion is also minimal during end-systole (isovolumic relaxation), but this is of shorter duration than diastolic diastasis at low heart rates.
With dual-source computed tomography (CT) scanning at low heart rates, the optimal reconstruction window is often 70–75% of the R-R interval (diastolic) for all of the coronary arteries. A 30-35% systolic window may occasionally be helpful for the right coronary artery. [65] As heart rate increases, diastole shortens relative to systole, and diastasis shortens dramatically. The optimal reconstruction window transitions from diastole to systole around 75-85 bpm. [4, 66] At high heart rates, the optimal reconstruction windows are 85-90% (diastole) and 40-45% (systole). [66] End-systolic reconstruction windows [63] may be helpful in patients with atrial fibrillation, as the systolic rest period will be less variable than the diastolic rest period.
Use of a fixed reconstruction window, [63] such as 50 msec rather than a percentage of the R-R interval, is helpful in patients with atrial fibrillation and variable R-R intervals.
A variety of postprocessing techniques are useful in coronary CT angiography (CCTA). [7] Many interpreting physicians will start with the axial source images and then utilize multiplanar reconstructions in at least 2 planes.
Axial source images are often the initial images used to review the coronary arteries and are used to evaluate the extracardiac structures.
MPRs can be performed at oblique planes to the body or the coronary arteries. For coronary artery imaging, a curved MPR technique is usually used where the reconstruction plane is locked onto the target vessel. This requires a manual or automatic centerline to be drawn along the vessel. Curved MPR images can often be difficult to obtain if the centerline is difficult to trace, for reasons such as motion artifact, poor contrast opacification, or dense calcifications. The curved MPR can be unfolded so that the vessel appears to be straight (“ribbon view”). Note that a single curved MPR may not adequately display eccentric lesions, and correlation with orthogonal MPR views, such as an end-on view perpendicular to the vessel, is necessary.
With the MIP technique, the highest voxel attenuation values from a volume of CT data are used to reconstruct the image. The MIP technique can be used to create “angiographic” images. However, as voxels with lower attenuation values are suppressed, noncalcified plaques can be masked by luminal contrast, and calcified plaque can mask less dense luminal contrast. [7] The MIP technique tends to overestimate stenosis.
Volume-rendered images are visually appealing, but they usually play little role in primary interpretation. They are helpful for visualizing anomalous vessels and bypass grafts. Generation of volume-rendered images is computationally intensive and often requires manual editing.
The left anterior descending artery (LAD) and posterior descending artery (PDA) run in the interventricular groove, while the circumflex and right coronary arteries (RCA) run in the atrioventricular groove. [67, 68, 69]
In general, hypoplasia of one vessel will be accompanied by prominence of another vessel. For example, if the LAD is small and does not extend to the apex, the PDA is typically prominent and extends to the apex. If the circumflex is small, there are typically prominent posterolateral branches arising from the RCA. If there is a large ramus intermedius, the diagonals may be small. [67, 68, 69]
Right dominant (80-85%): Both the PDA and the posterolateral (also called posterior ventricular) branches arise from the RCA.
Left dominant (15-20%): Both the PDA and the posterolateral branches arise from the circumflex.
Codominant (5%): The PDA arises from the RCA. The posterolateral branches arise from the circumflex.
The left main coronary artery is variable in length, 11 mm ± 5 mm. [70] If intervention in the left coronary artery system is a possibility, it may be helpful to report the length of the left main artery. The left main coronary artery will usually bifurcate into the LAD and the left circumflex artery. In approximately 30% of cases, the left main artery will trifurcate, with a ramus intermedius artery between the LAD and circumflex. The ramus intermedius artery will supply a lateral wall territory between the first diagonal and the first obtuse marginal branch territories.
Rarely, the left main coronary artery will be absent and the LAD and circumflex artery will arise directly from the aorta.
The LAD is variable in length and can terminate before the apex, supply the apex, or supply the distal inferior wall.
The LAD gives rise to diagonal branches supplying the anterolateral wall and to septal perforators supplying the interventricular septum. Compared with the diagonals, the septal perforators usually are less implicated in ischemia and are less often targets of intervention.
In 1% of cases, there can be dual LADs. [71] In these cases, a short LAD terminates high in the interventricular groove. A long LAD originates as an early branch from the LAD proper or, less likely, from the RCA. The proximal LAD courses outside the interventricular groove, with the distal portion returning to the groove. This should be distinguished from a diagonal branch; the diagonal will not enter the interventricular groove distally.
The left circumflex artery gives off obtuse marginal branches that supply the posterolateral wall. In many cases, particularly in a right-dominant system, the first obtuse marginal branch will be larger than the circumflex. The circumflex artery is the vessel that remains in the atrioventricular groove.
The left circumflex artery usually terminates in the atrioventricular groove. In a left dominant system, the PDA and posterolateral branches arise from the circumflex. In the codominant system, the posterolateral branches arise from the circumflex.
The branches from the RCA are called acute marginal or right ventricular marginal arteries. However, the acute marginal branch is also used to refer to the largest marginal artery, which arises at the inferior aspect of the right border of the heart, coursing towards the apex. The marginal arteries usually do not cause significant ischemia and are rarely targets for intervention.
At the inferior aspect of the right atrioventricular groove, the RCA, if dominant, bifurcates into the PDA and posterolateral left ventricular branch. The PDA runs along the undersurface of the heart in the posterior interventricular groove and gives rise to septal perforators supplying the posterior third of the interventricular septum. The posterolateral branch has a hairpin curve (first cephalad, then caudad), and supplies the posterior and lateral left ventricular walls.
There are 3 “named” arteries that can arise from the RCA, as follows:
The first branch off the RCA is often the conus artery. In 50% of cases, the conus artery arises from the RCA; in the other 50%, it arises from the aorta. The conus artery heads anteriorly toward the conus (right ventricular outflow tract). (See the image below.)
The second branch off the RCA is often the sinoatrial (SA) nodal artery. In 55% of cases, the SA nodal artery arises from the RCA; in the other 45%, it arises from the circumflex. The SA nodal artery heads posteriorly toward the sinoatrial node. The sinoatrial node is located in the superior aspect of crista terminalis of the right atrium (near where the superior vena cava joins the right atrium). The crista terminalis is a vestigial remnant located between the right atrial appendage and the sinus venosus. The crista terminalis can be seen as a right atrial “pseudomass” on computed tomography (CT) scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or echocardiography. (See the images below.)
The last named branch off the RCA is the atrioventricular (AV) nodal artery, which arises from the RCA in 80-87% of cases. It can also arise from the circumflex or from both the RCA and the circumflex. If it originates from the RCA, it typically arises from the proximal posterolateral branch. It heads superiorly through the septum to the AV node, which is in the inferior aspect of the interatrial septum.
Collateral pathways are typically better visualized on invasive coronary angiography than on CCTA. There is a large number of potential collateral pathways.( [72] )
Two “named” collateral pathways are the following:
Kugel’s artery [73] : Connects an anterior artery (typically the circumflex) with a posterior artery (typically the RCA) at the crux (junction of the posterior interventricular and AV grooves) of the heart. This may connect with the AV nodal artery and supply the AV node.
Arc of Vieussens’/Vieussens’ ring [74] : Connects the RCA (typically via the conus artery) with the LAD.
Coronary artery anomalies can be broadly classified as anomalies of origin, anomalies of course, and anomalies of termination. [75]
In anomalous cases, the coronary arteries should be identified by their location rather than by their origin or specific branches. The right coronary artery lies in the right atrioventricular groove and supplies the right ventricular free wall. The LAD lies in the anterior interventricular groove and supplies the anterior interventricular septum (the LAD need not give rise to diagonal branches). The left circumflex artery lies in the left atrioventricular groove and supplies the left ventricular free wall.
Most anomalies are incidental findings but may be important during surgical planning to avoid accidental vascular injury. Only a few anomalies are potentially malignant, with the potential to result in ischemia, infarction, or sudden death. These include origin of the artery from the opposite coronary sinus with interarterial course, pulmonary artery origin, and coronary artery fistulae. Patients with anomalous coronary artery origin from the pulmonary arteries show symptoms in infancy and early childhood.
The left and right coronary arteries can arise from the noncoronary sinus or the opposite sinus. In these cases, the arteries can take 4 courses: retroaortic, prepulmonic, septal (beneath the right ventricular outflow tract), or interarterial (between the aorta and pulmonary artery). Patients with an interarterial course, particularly of the left coronary artery, are at risk for ischemia, infarction, and sudden cardiac death, particularly during exercise. (See the images below.)
Myocardial bridging, [76] also called tunneled artery, is a congenital anomaly where myocardium encases a segment of coronary artery. It is most common in the mid-LAD. The artery may be compressed in the systolic phase. Although it is usually a benign anomaly, it has been associated with myocardial ischemia. Myocardial bridging is well demonstrated by CCTA. As most diagnostic images are obtained in diastole, it is important to also review systolic images, if available, to evaluate for systolic compression. Atherosclerotic changes are more common proximal to the tunneled artery. (See the image below.)
Myocardial loops refer to muscle bundles from the atrial myocardium surrounding three quarters of the circumference of an artery. These are of no clinical significance.
Coronary artery fistulas are usually congenital and can be symptomatic if large. They are well visualized by CCTA. Coronary artery fistulas originate from the RCA in two thirds of cases and the left coronary system in a quarter of cases. More than 90% drain into the right atrium, coronary sinus, or right ventricle. [77] On CCTA, contrast opacification of the receiving chamber/vessel (shunt sign) [77] is useful for determining the exact site of entry of the fistula. However, this finding will be obscured if there is a significant amount of preexisting contrast in the receiving chamber/vessel. (See the image below.)
Other anomalies are not hemodynamically significant but important to describe in detail if intervention is a possibility. For example, a dual LAD can result in diagnostic error during cardiac catheterization or in technical difficulty during revascularization.
There are many different methods to grade the degree of stenosis, including visual assessment; manually determined diameter or cross-sectional area on multiplanar reformats perpendicular to the median centerline of the vessel (“end-on” view); diameter on maximum intensity projection (MIP) images parallel to the long axis of the vessel; and software calculation [8] of diameter or area. Dodd et al found that the cross-sectional area technique had the highest correlation with quantitative coronary angiography, and MIP technique had the smallest interobserver variability. [78] Grading is less accurate in calcified plaques and in distal coronary vessels. In one report the most common etiologies of diagreement between computed tomography angiography (CTA) and catheter angiography were motion-related degradation of image quality, calcification, smaller vessel diameter, left anterior descending (LAD) artery location, and bifurcation location. [79]
Cross-sectional images at the level of the most severe narrowing can be compared to a reference minimal lumen diameter averaging the segments proximal and distal to the stenosis. The diameter should be measured lumen to lumen rather than wall to wall. The distal reference vessel should not be distal to a bifurcation.
Because the spatial resolution is inadequate for precise grading, coronary stenoses are often graded with semiquantitative descriptors such as normal, mild (< 50%), moderate (50–70% stenosis), severe (>70% stenosis), and occluded.
Stenosis is typically overestimated in areas where heavily calcified plaques are present. In one study, when calcification was greater than 50% of the luminal diameter, there was a signficant decrease in specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of CTA for evaluating coronary stenosis. [80] In the presence of extensive calcification, reconstruction of a additional dataset using a sharper convolution kernel (as used for stents) and use of bone window setting can reduce blooming artifacts from calcification. [81] Zhang et al offer the following suggestions to better assess the degree of stenosis when calcified plaques are present [82] :
A significant luminal stenosis is unlikely if the plaque thickness measures 50% or less of the diameter of a nearby normal segment and if it is eccentrically positioned on a cross-sectional multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) view or there is visible lumen adjacent to the plaque on a long-axis MPR view, .
A significant stenosis is likely if calcified plaque fills the entire central portion of the lumen on a cross-sectional MPR image.
A significant stenosis can be suggested if calcified plaque is 50% or greater than the diameter of a nearby normal segment on cross-sectional MPR images but does not completely fill the lumen; however, the interpreter might add that coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography (CCTA) may overestimate the degree of stenosis in this situation.
Several areas may be difficult to evaluate due to curvature, and additional review of these regions using thick-slap MIP may be helpful, as follows:
Distal segment of the RCA and origin of the PDA
Origin of the first diagonal branch
Distal circumflex near the origin of the obtuse marginal
A stenosis should always have an associated visible plaque, calcified or noncalcified. This is helpful in differentiating stenosis from artifactual apparent narrowing.
A consensus report from 2 cardiac Computed tomography (CT) specialty societies suggests a reporting template for coronary (CT) angiography (CCTA). [34] A structured approach to reporting can also be used. [38]
The reporting template includes the following:
Indication for examination
Imaging technique:
Contrast agent administered
CT technique
Vasodilator or beta blocker
Workstation methods for image reconstruction
Complications
Description of findings:
Overall description of image quality/diagnostic confidence
Source of limitations, such as calcification and motion
Coronary anatomy/anomalies:
Anomalies of coronary origin
Right or left dominant system
Location and size of coronary artery aneurysm/dilatation
Coronary artery atherosclerosis:
Calcium score (if performed)
Description of atherosclerotic narrowing for vessels 2 mm or less in diameter
Location of atherosclerotic narrowing by anatomic landmarks, or a 15-segment model used for conventional angiography
Diffuse or focal disease description
Description of plaque, such as noncalcified, mixed, or calcified
Ventricular size and function, when requested and available
Extracardiac findings
Summary/impression and recommendation
Overview
What is coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are artifacts of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are the applications of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are the appropriate uses for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What is the radiation dose of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
How are patients prepared for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What is the role of beta blockers in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What is the role of nitroglycerin in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What is coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) image reconstruction?
How is stenosis graded using coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
How does coronary artery disease (CAD) appear on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are indications of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) of coronary artery stents?
What is the accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) of coronary artery stents?
What are indications of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) of coronary bypass grafts?
What is the accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) of coronary bypass grafts?
What are the recent advances in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) technology?
What is 256-slice CT and 320-slice CT?
What are the radiation risks from coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are the advantages of reduced tube voltage for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are the advantages to increased pitch in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
How can the radiation dose of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) be lowered?
What is included in patient preparation for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
Which beta-blockers are used for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What is the role of diltiazem and verapamil in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are the contraindications to nitroglycerin in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are blooming artifacts of on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are stairstep artifacts on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are coronary artery motion artifacts on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
How is coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) performed in patients with arrhythmia?
What are the respiratory motion artifacts on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What causes streak artifacts on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
How is the reconstruction window determined in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What is the role of axial source images in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What is the role of 3D volume rendering in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What coronary anatomy is relevant to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are the coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) anatomic findings of dominance?
What are the left main artery anatomic findings on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What are the findings of anatomic anomalies on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
How is stenosis graded using coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
What is the reporting template for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)?
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 Angiog… Circulation. 2010 Nov 23. 122(21):e525-55. [Medline].
Klass O, Walker M, Siebach A, et al. Prospectively gated axial CT coronary angiography: comparison of image quality and effective radiation dose between 64- and 256-slice CT. Eur Radiol. 2010 May. 20(5):1124-31. [Medline].
Earls JP, Berman EL, Urban BA, et al. Prospectively gated transverse coronary CT angiography versus retrospectively gated helical technique: improved image quality and reduced radiation dose. Radiology. 2008 Mar. 246(3):742-53. [Medline].
Kroft LJ, de Roos A, Geleijns J. Artifacts in ECG-synchronized MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Sep. 189(3):581-91. [Medline].
Decramer I, Vanhoenacker PK, Sarno G, Van Hoe L, Bladt O, Wijns W. Effects of sublingual nitroglycerin on coronary lumen diameter and number of visualized septal branches on 64-MDCT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Jan. 190(1):219-25. [Medline].
2009 Physicians’ Desk Reference. 63rd ed. Montvale, NJ: Thomson Reuters; 2009.
Sirineni GK, Kalra MK, Pottala KM, Syed MA, Tigges S, Cann AD. Visualization techniques in computed tomographic coronary angiography. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2006 Nov-Dec. 35(6):245-57. [Medline].
Busch S, Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, von Ziegler F, Knez A, Reiser MF. Visual and automatic grading of coronary artery stenoses with 64-slice CT angiography in reference to invasive angiography. Eur Radiol. 2007 Jun. 17(6):1445-51. [Medline].
Budoff MJ, Cohen MC, Garcia MJ, et al. ACCF/AHA clinical competence statement on cardiac imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance. Circulation. 2005 Jul 26. 112(4):598-617. [Medline].
Weinreb JC, Larson PA, Woodard PK, et al. American College of Radiology clinical statement on noninvasive cardiac imaging. Radiology. 2005 Jun. 235(3):723-7. [Medline].
Budoff MJ, Cohen MC, Garcia MJ, et al. ACCF/AHA clinical competence statement on cardiac imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jul 19. 46(2):383-402. [Medline].
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 Nov 18. 52(21):1724-32. [Medline].
den Dekker MA, de Smet K, de Bock GH, Tio RA, Oudkerk M, Vliegenthart R. Diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography for stenosis detection according to calcium score: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2012 Dec. 22(12):2688-98. [Medline].
Torres FS, Venkatesh V, Nguyen ET, Jimenez-Juan L, Crean AM. Coronary calcium scan acquisition before coronary CT angiography: limited benefit or useful addition?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jan. 200(1):66-73. [Medline].
Bluemke DA, Achenbach S, Budoff M, et al. Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: magnetic resonance angiography and multidetector computed tomography angiography: a scientific statement from the american heart association committee on cardiovascular imaging and intervention of the council on cardiovascular radiology and intervention, and the councils on clinical cardiology and cardiovascular disease in the young. Circulation. 2008 Jul 29. 118(5):586-606. [Medline].
Schuetz GM, Zacharopoulou NM, Schlattmann P, Dewey M. Meta-analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Feb 2. 152(3):167-77. [Medline].
Cho I, Chang HJ, Sung JM, et al. Coronary computed tomographic angiography and risk of all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction in subjects without chest pain syndrome from the CONFIRM Registry (coronary CT angiography evaluation for clinical outcomes: an international multicenter registry). Circulation. 2012 Jul 17. 126(3):304-13. [Medline].
Shaw LJ, Hausleiter J, Achenbach S, et al. Coronary computed tomographic angiography as a gatekeeper to invasive diagnostic and surgical procedures: results from the multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: an International Multicenter) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Nov 13. 60(20):2103-14. [Medline].
Hoffmann U, Truong QA, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jul 26. 367(4):299-308. [Medline].
Hulten E, Pickett C, Bittencourt MS, et al. Outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Feb 26. 61(8):880-92. [Medline].
Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technol Assess. 2008 May. 12(17):iii-iv, ix-143. [Medline].
Min JK, Gilmore A, Budoff MJ, Berman DS, O’Day K. Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion SPECT for evaluation of patients with chest pain and no known coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2010 Mar. 254(3):801-8. [Medline].
Min JK, Koduru S, Dunning AM, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for near-term quality of life, cost and radiation exposure: a prospective multicenter randomized pilot trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012 Jul-Aug. 6(4):274-83. [Medline].
Gorenoi V, Schönermark MP, Hagen A. CT coronary angiography vs. invasive coronary angiography in CHD. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2012. 8:Doc02. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008 Nov 27. 359(22):2324-36. [Medline].
Wever-Pinzon O, Romero J, Kelesidis I, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography for the detection of cardiac allograft vasculopathy: a meta-analysis of prospective trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 May 20. 63(19):1992-2004. [Medline].
Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al, for the PROMISE Investigators. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 2. 372(14):1291-300. [Medline].
Mark DB, Berman DS, Budoff MJ, et al. 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. 2010 Jun 8. 121(22):2509-43. [Medline].
Sun Z, Almutairi AM. Diagnostic accuracy of 64 multislice CT angiography in the assessment of coronary in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Feb. 73(2):266-73. [Medline].
Sheth T, Dodd JD, Hoffmann U, et al. Coronary stent assessability by 64 slice multi-detector computed tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007 Jun 1. 69(7):933-8. [Medline].
Maintz D, Burg MC, Seifarth H, et al. Update on multidetector coronary CT angiography of coronary stents: in vitro evaluation of 29 different stent types with dual-source CT. Eur Radiol. 2009 Jan. 19(1):42-9. [Medline].
Oncel D, Oncel G, Tastan A, Tamci B. Evaluation of coronary stent patency and in-stent restenosis with dual-source CT coronary angiography without heart rate control. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Jul. 191(1):56-63. [Medline].
Pugliese F, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem C, et al. Multidetector CT for visualization of coronary stents. Radiographics. 2006 May-Jun. 26(3):887-904. [Medline].
Poon M, Rubin GD, Achenbach S, et al. Consensus update on the appropriate usage of cardiac computed tomographic angiography. J Invasive Cardiol. 2007 Nov. 19(11):484-90. [Medline].
Lim HB, Hur G, Kim SY, et al. Coronary stent fracture: detection with 64-section multidetector CT angiography in patients and in vitro. Radiology. 2008 Dec. 249(3):810-9. [Medline].
Hamon M, Lepage O, Malagutti P, et al. Diagnostic performance of 16- and 64-section spiral CT for coronary artery bypass graft assessment: meta-analysis. Radiology. 2008 Jun. 247(3):679-86. [Medline].
von Kiedrowski H, Wiemer M, Franzke K, et al. Non-invasive coronary angiography: the clinical value of multi-slice computed tomography in the assessment of patients with prior coronary bypass surgery. Evaluating grafts and native vessels. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Feb. 25(2):161-70. [Medline].
Stillman AE, Rubin GD, Teague SD, White RD, Woodard PK, Larson PA. Structured reporting: coronary CT angiography: a white paper from the American College of Radiology and the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Jul. 5(7):796-800. [Medline].
Mahesh M, Cody DD. Physics of cardiac imaging with multiple-row detector CT. Radiographics. 2007 Sep-Oct. 27(5):1495-509. [Medline].
Primak AN, McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Zhang J, Fletcher JG. Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi-detector row CT. Radiographics. 2006 Nov-Dec. 26(6):1785-94. [Medline].
Cody DD, Mahesh M. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: Technologic advances in multidetector CT with a focus on cardiac imaging. Radiographics. 2007 Nov-Dec. 27(6):1829-37. [Medline].
Achenbach S, Anders K, Kalender WA. Dual-source cardiac computed tomography: image quality and dose considerations. Eur Radiol. 2008 Jun. 18(6):1188-98. [Medline].
Salavati A, Radmanesh F, Heidari K, Dwamena BA, Kelly AM, Cronin P. Dual-source computed tomography angiography for diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012 Mar-Apr. 6(2):78-90. [Medline].
Westwood ME, Raatz HD, Misso K, et al. Systematic review of the accuracy of dual-source cardiac CT for detection of arterial stenosis in difficult to image patient groups. Radiology. 2013 May. 267(2):387-95. [Medline].
Gassenmaier T, Petri N, Allmendinger T, et al. Next generation coronary CT angiography: in vitro evaluation of 27 coronary stents. Eur Radiol. 2014 Nov. 24(11):2953-61. [Medline].
Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML, et al. Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008 Jun. 24(5):535-46. [Medline].
Steigner ML, Otero HJ, Cai T, et al. Narrowing the phase window width in prospectively ECG-gated single heart beat 320-detector row coronary CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Jan. 25(1):85-90. [Medline].
Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. Dec 2009. 169:2078-86. [Medline].
Huang B, Li J, Zhang J, et al. Radiation dose and cancer risk in retrospectively and prospectively ECG-gated coronary angiography using 64-slice multidetector CT. Br J Radiol. Feb 2010. 83:152-8. [Medline].
Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. NEJM. March 2010. 362:886-95.
Halpern EJ, Fischman D, Savage MP, Koka AR, DeCaro M, Levin DC. Decision analytic model for evaluation of suspected coronary disease with stress testing and coronary CT angiography. Acad Radiol. 2010 May. 17(5):577-86. [Medline].
Hausleiter J, Meyer T. Tips to minimize radiation exposure. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2008 Sep-Oct. 2(5):325-7. [Medline].
Halliburton SS, Abbara S, Chen MY, et al. SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011 Jul-Aug. 5(4):198-224. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Stolzmann P, Leschka S, Scheffel H, et al. Dual-source CT in step-and-shoot mode: noninvasive coronary angiography with low radiation dose. Radiology. 2008 Oct. 249(1):71-80. [Medline].
Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, et al. Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J. 2008 Jan. 29(2):191-7. [Medline].
Dewey M, Zimmermann E, Deissenrider F, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy: comparison of results with cardiac catherization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation. Sep 2009. 120:867-75. [Medline].
Menke J, Unterberg-Buchwald C, Staab W, Sohns JM, Seif Amir Hosseini A, Schwarz A. Head-to-head comparison of prospectively triggered vs retrospectively gated coronary computed tomography angiography: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose. Am Heart J. 2013 Feb. 165(2):154-163.e3. [Medline].
Tatsugami F, Matsuki M, Nakai G, et al. The effect of adaptive iterative dose reduction on image quality in 320-detector row CT coronary angiography. Br J Radiol. 2012 Aug. 85(1016):e378-82. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Chen MY, Shanbhag SM, Arai AE. Submillisievert median radiation dose for coronary angiography with a second-generation 320-detector row CT scanner in 107 consecutive patients. Radiology. 2013 Apr. 267(1):76-85. [Medline].
Pannu HK, Alvarez W Jr, Fishman EK. Beta-blockers for cardiac CT: a primer for the radiologist. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jun. 186(6 Suppl 2):S341-5. [Medline].
Weigold WG. Coronary CT angiography: insights into patient preparation and scanning. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006 Dec. 9(4):205-9. [Medline].
Degertekin M, Gemici G, Kaya Z, et al. Safety and efficacy of patient preparation with intravenous esmolol before 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. Coron Artery Dis. 2008 Feb. 19(1):33-6. [Medline].
Oncel D, Oncel G, Tastan A. Effectiveness of dual-source CT coronary angiography for the evaluation of coronary artery disease in patients with atrial fibrillation: initial experience. Radiology. 2007 Dec. 245(3):703-11. [Medline].
Matsumoto H, Kondo T, Watanabe S, et al. ECG-edited middiastolic phase reconstruction improves image quality at 64-MDCT coronary angiography of patients with atrial fibrillation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Dec. 191(6):1659-66. [Medline].
Sanz J, Rius T, Kuschnir P, et al. The importance of end-systole for optimal reconstruction protocol of coronary angiography with 16-slice multidetector computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2005 Mar. 40(3):155-63. [Medline].
Seifarth H, Wienbeck S, Pusken M, et al. Optimal systolic and diastolic reconstruction windows for coronary CT angiography using dual-source CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Dec. 189(6):1317-23. [Medline].
Zimmet JM, Miller JM. Coronary artery CTA: imaging of atherosclerosis in the coronary arteries and reporting of coronary artery CTA findings. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006 Dec. 9(4):218-26. [Medline].
Kini S, Bis KG, Weaver L. Normal and variant coronary arterial and venous anatomy on high-resolution CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jun. 188(6):1665-74. [Medline].
Saremi F, Krishnan S. Cardiac conduction system: anatomic landmarks relevant to interventional electrophysiologic techniques demonstrated with 64-detector CT. Radiographics. 2007 Nov-Dec. 27(6):1539-65; discussion 1566-7. [Medline].
Cademartiri F, La Grutta L, Malago R, et al. Prevalence of anatomical variants and coronary anomalies in 543 consecutive patients studied with 64-slice CT coronary angiography. Eur Radiol. 2008 Apr. 18(4):781-91. [Medline].
Agarwal PP, Kazerooni EA. Dual left anterior descending coronary artery: CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Dec. 191(6):1698-701. [Medline].
Sundaram B, Patel S, Agarwal P, Kazerooni EA. Anatomy and terminology for the interpretation and reporting of cardiac MDCT: part 2, CT angiography, cardiac function assessment, and noncoronary and extracardiac findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Mar. 192(3):584-98. [Medline].
Nerantzis CE, Marianou SK, Koulouris SN, Agapitos EB, Papaioannou JA, Vlahos LJ. Kugel’s artery: an anatomical and angiographic study using a new technique. Tex Heart Inst J. 2004. 31(3):267-70. [Medline].
O’Leary EL, Garza L, Williams M, McCall D. Images in cardiovascular medicine. Vieussens’ ring. Circulation. 1998 Aug 4. 98(5):487-8. [Medline].
Kim SY, Seo JB, Do KH, et al. Coronary artery anomalies: classification and ECG-gated multi-detector row CT findings with angiographic correlation. Radiographics. 2006 Mar-Apr. 26(2):317-33; discussion 333-4. [Medline].
Hazirolan T, Canyigit M, Karcaaltincaba M, et al. Myocardial bridging on MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Apr. 188(4):1074-80. [Medline].
Dodd JD, Ferencik M, Liberthson RR, et al. Evaluation of efficacy of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography in patients with congenital coronary fistulas. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008 Mar-Apr. 32(2):265-70. [Medline].
Dodd JD, Rieber J, Pomerantsev E, et al. Quantification of nonculprit coronary lesions: comparison of cardiac 64-MDCT and invasive coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Aug. 191(2):432-8. [Medline].
Muzzarelli S, Suerder D, Murzilli R, et al. Predictors of disagreement between prospectively ECG-triggered dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography and conventional coronary angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2016 Jun. 85(6):1138-46. [Medline].
Qi L, Tang LJ, Xu Y, et al. The diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography for the assessment of coronary stenosis in calcified plaque. PLoS One. 2016. 11(5):e0154852. [Medline].
Karlo CA, Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Glaser-Gallion N, Wildermuth S, Alkadhi H. A systematic approach for analysis, interpretation, and reporting of coronary CTA studies. Insights Imaging. 2012 Jun. 3(3):215-28. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Zhang S, Levin DC, Halpern EJ, Fischman D, Savage M, Walinsky P. Accuracy of MDCT in assessing the degree of stenosis caused by calcified coronary artery plaques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Dec. 191(6):1676-83. [Medline].
Marano R, Savino G, Merlino B, et al. MDCT coronary angiography — postprocessing, reading, and reporting: last but not least. Acta Radiol. 2013 Apr 1. 54(3):249-58. [Medline].
Achenbach S, Marwan M, Ropers D, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography with a consistent dose below 1 mSv using prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition. Eur Heart J. February 2010. 31:340-6. [Medline].
Al-Mallah MH, Qureshi W, Lin FY, et al. Does coronary CT angiography improve risk stratification over coronary calcium scoring in symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease? Results from the prospective multicenter international CONFIRM registry. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar. 15(3):267-74. [Medline].
Liu X, Wu G, Xu C, et al. Quantitative evaluation of coronary plaque progression by computed tomographic angiography. Tex Heart Inst J. 2017 Oct. 44(5):312-9. [Medline].
Kolossvary M, Szilveszter B, Merkely B, Maurovich-Horvat P. Plaque imaging with CT-a comprehensive review on coronary CT angiography based risk assessment. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2017 Oct. 7(5):489-506. [Medline].
Achenbach S. Coronary CT angiography-future directions. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2017 Oct. 7(5):432-8. [Medline].
Eugene C Lin, MD Attending Radiologist, Teaching Coordinator for Cardiac Imaging, Radiology Residency Program, Virginia Mason Medical Center; Clinical Assistant Professor of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine
Eugene C Lin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Nuclear Medicine, American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Ryan P Bredeweg, MD Interventional Radiologist, Tacoma Radiology
Ryan P Bredeweg, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Interventional Radiology
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Paul L Sicuro, MD Radiologist, CT Section Head, Virginia Mason Medical Center; Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine
Paul L Sicuro, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, American Roentgen Ray Society, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Eugene C Lin, MD Attending Radiologist, Teaching Coordinator for Cardiac Imaging, Radiology Residency Program, Virginia Mason Medical Center; Clinical Assistant Professor of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine
Eugene C Lin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Nuclear Medicine, American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Coronary CT Angiography
Research & References of Coronary CT Angiography|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source
0 Comments