Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate sex differences in the prevalence, extent, and association of coronary artery calcium (CAC) and thoracic aorta calcium (TAC) scores with cardiovascular mortality in a population eligible for lung screening., Background: CAC and TAC scores derived from chest computed tomography (CT) might be useful biomarkers for individualized cardiovascular disease prevention and could be especially relevant in high-risk populations such as heavy smokers. Therefore, it is important to know the prevalence of arterial calcifications in male and female heavy smokers, and if there are differences in the predictive value calcifications carry., Methods: We performed a nested case-control study with 5,718 participants of the CT arm of the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial). Prevalence and extent of CAC and TAC were resampled to the full cohort to provide unbiased estimates of the typical calcium burden of male and female heavy smokers. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess differences in the association of CAC and TAC scores with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality., Results: CAC was substantially more common and more severe in men (prevalence: 81% vs. 60%; median volume: 104 mm³ vs. 12 mm³). Women had CAC comparable to that of men who were 10 years younger. TAC was equally common in men and women, with a tendency to be more pronounced in women (prevalence: 92% vs. 93%; median volume: 388 mm³ vs. 404 mm³). Both types of calcification were associated with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. TAC scores improved the prediction of coronary heart disease mortality over CAC in men, but not in women. In both sexes, TAC, but not CAC, was associated with cardiovascular mortality other than coronary heart disease., Conclusions: CAC develops later in women, whereas TAC develops equally in both sexes. CAC is strongly associated with coronary heart disease, whereas TAC is especially associated with extracardiac vascular mortality in either sex., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This meta-analysis determined the diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA), CT myocardial perfusion (CTP), fractional flow reserve CT (FFR CT ), the transluminal attenuation gradient (TAG), and their combined use with CTA versus FFR as a reference standard for detection of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD)., Background: CTA provides excellent anatomic, albeit limited functional information for the evaluation of CAD. Recently, various functional CT techniques emerged to assess the hemodynamic consequences of CAD., Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in adherence to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from inception until September 7, 2017. Bayesian random effects analysis was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of the index tests and compare them with the FFR as a reference standard. Analyses were performed on vessel and patient levels. Because CTA has excellent sensitivity, specificity was considered most relevant. Individual FFR CT values were collected., Results: Overall, 54 articles and 5,330 patients were included. At vessel level, pooled specificity of CTP (0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76 to 0.93), FFR CT (0.78; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.83) and TAG (0.77; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.89) were substantially higher than that of CTA (0.61; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.68). The addition of FFR CT, CTP, and TAG to CTA resulted in high to excellent specificities (0.80 to 0.92). The summary receiver-operating characteristic curve at vessel level yielded superior diagnostic accuracy for CTP, FFR CT , and combined CTA and CTP, compared with CTA. A subanalysis of on-site versus off-site FFR CT revealed no substantial differences between the sensitivity (0.84 vs. 0.85) and specificity (0.80 vs. 0.73) of the 2 techniques. In a second subanalysis, dynamic CTP showed higher sensitivity (0.85 vs. 0.72), but had a lower specificity (0.81 vs. 0.90) than static CTP., Conclusions: CTP and FFR CT demonstrated a substantial improvement in the identification of hemodynamically significant CAD compared with CTA; therefore, their integration to clinical workflow before revascularization is recommended., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is used in the emergency department to rule out acute coronary syndrome in low-intermediate risk patients., Objectives: We evaluated the potential of CCTA to tailor aspirin (ASA) and statin therapy in acute chest pain patients., Methods: We included all patients in the ROMICAT I trial who underwent CCTA before admission. Results of CCTA were blinded to caretakers. We documented ASA and statin therapy at admission and discharge and determined change in medications during hospitalization, agreement of discharge medications with contemporaneous guidelines, and agreement with the presence and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) as determined by CCTA., Results: We included 368 patients (53 ± 12 years; 61% male). Baseline medical therapy at presentation included 27% on ASA and 24% on statin. Most patients who qualified for secondary prevention were on ASA and statin therapy at discharge (95% and 80%, respectively), whereas among those qualifying for primary prevention therapy, only 59% of patients were on aspirin and 33% were on statin at discharge. Excluding secondary prevention patients, among those with CCTA-detected CAD, only 66/131 (50%) were on ASA at discharge and only 53/131 (40%) were on statin. Conversely, in those without CCTA-detected CAD, 54/156 (35%) were on ASA and 20/151 (13%) were on statin at discharge., Conclusion: There are significant discrepancies between discharge prescription of statin and ASA with the presence and extent of CAD. CCTA presents an efficient opportunity to tailor medical therapy to CAD in patients undergoing CCTA as part of their acute chest pain evaluation., (Copyright © 2015 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronary CT angiography (CTA) is an established tool to rule out coronary artery disease. Performance of coronary CTA is highly dependent on patients' heart rates (HRs). Despite widespread use of β-blockers for coronary CTA, few studies have compared various agents used to achieve adequate HR control., Objective: We sought to assess if the ultrashort-acting β-blocker intravenous esmolol is at least as efficacious as the standard of care intravenous metoprolol for HR control during coronary CTA., Methods: Patients referred to coronary CTA with a HR >65 beats/min despite oral metoprolol premedication were enrolled in the study. We studied 412 patients (211 male; mean age, 57 ± 12 years). Two hundred four patients received intravenous esmolol, and 208 received intravenous metoprolol with a stepwise bolus administration protocol. HR and blood pressure were recorded at arrival, before, during, immediately after, and 30 minutes after the coronary CTA scan., Results: Mean HRs of the esmolol and metoprolol groups were similar at arrival (78 ± 13 beats/min vs 77 ± 12 beats/min; P = .65) and before scan (68 ± 7 beats/min vs 69 ± 7 beats/min; P = .60). However, HR during scan was lower in the esmolol group vs the metoprolol group (58 ± 6 beats/min vs 61 ± 7 beats/min; P < .0001), whereas HRs immediately and 30 minutes after the scan were higher in the esmolol group vs the metoprolol group (68 ± 7 beats/min vs 66 ± 7 beats/min; P = .01 and 65 ± 8 beats/min vs 63 ± 8 beats/min; P < .0001; respectively). HR ≤ 65 beats/min was reached in 182 of 204 patients (89%) who received intravenous esmolol vs 162 of 208 of the patients (78%) who received intravenous metoprolol (P < .05). Of note, hypotension (systolic BP <100 mm Hg) was observed right after the scan in 19 patients (9.3%) in the esmolol group and in 8 patients (3.8%) in the metoprolol group (P < .05), whereas only 5 patients (2.5%) had hypotension 30 minutes after the scan in the esmolol group compared to 8 patients (3.8%) in the metoprolol group (P = .418)., Conclusion: Intravenous esmolol with a stepwise bolus administration protocol is at least as efficacious as the standard of care intravenous metoprolol for HR control in patients who undergo coronary CTA., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)