Search

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate image quality in patients with heart rates above or equal to 70 beats per minute (bpm), performed on a 16 cm scanner (256-slice General Electric Revolution) in comparison to a CT scanner with only 4 cm of coverage (64 slice Volume CT). BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in image acquisition, such as whole-heart coverage in a single rotation and post-processing methods in coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA), include motion-correction algorithms, such as SnapShot Freeze (SSF), which improve temporal resolution and allow for the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) with lower motion scores and better image qualities. Studies from the comprehensive evaluation of high temporal- and spatial-resolution cardiac CT using a wide coverage system (CONVERGE) registry (a multicenter registry at four centers) have shown the 16 cm CT scanner having a better image quality in comparison to the 4 cm scanner. However, these studies failed to include patients with undesirable or high heart rates due to well-documented poor image acquisition on prior generations of CCTA scanners. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study comparing image quality, quantitively and qualitatively, on scans performed on a 16 cm CCTA in comparison to a cohort of images captured on a 4 cm CCTA at four centers. Participants were recruited based on broad inclusion criteria, and each patient in the 16 cm CCTA arm of the study received a CCTA scan using a 256-slice, whole-heart, single-beat scanner. These patients were then matched by age, gender, and heart rate to patients who underwent CCTA scans on a 4 cm CT scanner. Image quality was graded based on the signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and on a Likert scale of 0-4: 0, very poor-4, excellent. RESULTS: 104 patients were evaluated for this study. The mean heart rate was 75 ± 7 in the 4 cm scanner and 75 ± 7 in the 16 cm one (p = 0.426). The signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios were higher in the 16 cm scanner (p = 0.0001). In addition, more scans were evaluated as having an excellent quality on the 16 cm scanner than on the 4 cm scanner (p < 0.0001) based on a 4-point Likert scale. CONCLUSIONS: The 16 cm scanner has a superior image quality for fast heart rates compared to the 4 cm scanner. This study shows that there is a significantly higher frequency of excellent and good studies showing better contrast-to-noise and signal-to-noise ratios with the 16 cm scanner compared to the 4 cm scanner.

Atherosclerosis is the commonest cause of death in Australia. Cardiovascular (CV) risk calculators have an important role in preventative cardiology, although they are are strongly age-dependent and designed to identify individuals at high risk of an imminent event. The imprecision around "intermediate" or "low" risk generates therapeutic uncertainty, and a significant proportion of patients presenting with myocardial infarction come from these groups, often with no warning. This highlights a conundrum: "Low" risk does not mean "no" risk. A fresh approach may be required to address the clinical conundrum around CV preventative approaches in non-high-risk individuals. While probabilistic calculators do not measure atherosclerosis, calculation of Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) scores by low-dose computed tomography (CT) can provide a snapshot of atherosclerotic burden. In intermediate-risk individuals, CAC is well-established as an aid to CV risk prediction. Although CAC scoring in low-risk asymptomatic people may be considered controversial, CAC has emerged as the single best predictor of CV events in asymptomatic individuals, independent of traditional risk factor calculators. Therefore, apart from the contribution of age and sex, the somewhat arbitrary distinction between "intermediate" and "low" CV risk using probabilistic calculators may need to be reconsidered. A zero CAC score has a very low future event rate and non-zero CAC scores are associated with a progressive, graded increase in risk as the CAC score rises. In this review, we examine the evidence for CAC screening in low-risk individuals, and propose more widespread use of CAC using simple new model intended to enhance established CV risk prediction equations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiac imaging is a rapidly evolving field, with improvements in the diagnostic capabilities of non-invasive cardiac assessment. We review the two main emerging technologies in cardiac imaging: computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) to evaluate chest symptoms and to exclude coronary artery disease; and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for evaluating cardiac morphology, function and presence of scar. CTCA is an excellent "rule out" test, with a negative predictive value approaching 100%. Radiation exposure is no longer a concern for CTCA, with doses routinely < 5 mSv, and as low as < 1 mSv in selected patients. CTCA is useful for excluding coronary artery disease, investigating the anatomy of coronary anomalies or fistulae, and for the patency of coronary bypass grafts. CMR is the reference test for the accurate quantitation of left ventricular and right ventricular size and function. CMR has no ionising radiation, making it particularly suitable for patients with heart failure or congenital heart disease who require longitudinal follow-up. Evaluation of cardiomyopathies (hypertrophic, ischaemic, infiltrative, myocarditis, iron overload or idiopathic) is a unique strength of CMR. Stress perfusion CMR has a strong evidence base and improved spatial and temporal resolution compared with nuclear single-photon emission computed tomography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) has high sensitivity, with 3 recent randomized trials favorably comparing CCTA to standard-of-care. Comparison to exercise stress ECG (ExECG), the most available and least expensive standard-of-care worldwide, has not been systematically tested. Methods: CT-COMPARE was a randomized, single-center trial of low–intermediate risk chest pain subjects undergoing CCTA or ExECG after the first negative troponin. From March 2010 to April 2011, 562 patients randomized to either dual-source CCTA (n = 322) or ExECG (n = 240). Primary endpoints were diagnostic performance for ACS, and hospital cost at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were time-to-discharge, admission rates, and downstream resource utilization. Results: ACS occurred in 24 (4%) patients. ExECG had 213 negative studies and 27 (26%) positive studies for ACS with sensitivity of 83% [95% CI: 36, 99.6%], specificity of 91% [CI: 86, 94%], and ROC AUC of 0.87 [CI: 0.70, 1]. CCTA (> 50% stenosis considered positive) had 288 negative studies and 18/35 (51%) positive studies with a sensitivity of 100% [CI: 81.5, 100], specificity of 94% [CI: 91.2, 96.7%], and ROC of 0.97 [CI: 0.92, 1.0; p = 0.2]. Despite CCTA having higher odds of downstream testing (OR 2.0), 30 day per-patient cost was significantly lower for CCTA ($2193 vs $2704, p < 0.001). Length of stay for CCTA was significantly reduced (13.5 h [95% CI: 11.2–15.7], ExECG 19.7 h [95% CI: 17.4–22.1], p < 0.0005), which drove the reduction in cost. No patient had post-discharge cardiovascular events at 30 days. Conclusions: CCTA had improved diagnostic performance compared to ExECG, combined with 35% relative reduction in length-of-stay, and 20% reduction in hospital costs. These data lend further evidence that CCTA is useful as a first line assessment in emergency department chest pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronary CT angiography and coronary calcium scoring offer a new approach to the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). They hold significant promise in improving patient outcomes, through identification of atherosclerosis and improved risk assessment. Coronary calcium scoring has proven predictive value concerning the occurrence of future cardiovascular events and outperforms current risk evaluation methods such as the Framingham Risk Score. Coronary CT angiography allows visualisation of the coronary artery lumen, detection of stenoses as well as visualisation of both calcified and non-calcified plaque. The accuracy of coronary CT angiography to detect obstructive coronary artery disease has been established by numerous trials. In particular the negative predictive value of the test approaches 100% in low and intermediate risk groups. Outcomes data demonstrate significant prognostic ability of coronary CT angiography. Modern techniques allow substantial reduction of dose values and radiation exposure of coronary CT angiography has significantly fallen. Coronary CT angiography can be reliably performed with doses similar to the level of annual background radiation, and less than one-third of a Tc Sestamibi scan. Coronary CT angiography has been approved for Medicare reimbursement for specific indications when performed by accredited providers. High quality examinations, experience and careful patient selection and preparation are required to ensure optimal results of coronary CT angiography, and to guide clinical decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) is a non-invasive diagnostic modality that provides a comprehensive anatomical assessment of the coronary arteries and coronary atherosclerosis, including plaque burden, composition and morphology. The past decade has witnessed an increase in the role of CTCA for evaluating patients with both stable and acute chest pain, and recent international guidelines have provided increasing support for a first line CTCA diagnostic strategy in select patients. CTCA offers some advantages over current functional tests in the detection of obstructive and non-obstructive coronary artery disease, as well as for ruling out obstructive coronary artery disease. Recent randomised trials have also shown that CTCA improves prognostication and guides the use of guideline-directed preventive therapies, leading to improved clinical outcomes. CTCA technology advances such as fractional flow reserve, plaque quantification and perivascular fat inflammation potentially allow for more personalised risk assessment and targeted therapies. Further studies evaluating demand, supply, and cost-effectiveness of CTCA for evaluating chest pain are required in Australia. This discussion paper revisits the evidence supporting the use of CTCA, provides an overview of its implications and limitations, and considers its potential role for chest pain evaluation pathways in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring (CAC) is a non-invasive quantitation of coronary artery calcification using computed tomography (CT). It is a marker of atherosclerotic plaque burden and an independent predictor of future myocardial infarction and mortality. Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring provides incremental risk information beyond traditional risk calculators (eg. Framingham Risk Score). Its use for risk stratification is confined to primary prevention of cardiovascular events, and can be considered as "individualised coronary risk scoring" for those not considered to be of high or low risk. Medical practitioners should carefully counsel patients prior to CAC. Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring should only be undertaken if an alteration in therapy including embarking on pharmacotherapy is being considered based on the test result. Patient Groups to Consider Coronary Calcium Scoring: Patient Groups in Whom Coronary Calcium Scoring Should Not be Considered: Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring is not recommended for patients who are: Interpretation of CAC CAC=0 A zero score confers a very low risk of death, <1% at 10 years. CAC=1-100 Low risk, <10% CAC=101-400 Intermediate risk, 10-20% CAC=101-400 & >75th centile. Moderately high risk, 15-20% CAC >400 High risk, >20% Management Recommendations Based on CAC Optimal diet and lifestyle measures are encouraged in all risk groups and form the basis of primary prevention strategies. Patients with moderately-high or high risk based on CAC score are recommended to receive preventative medical therapy such as aspirin and statins. The evidence for pharmacotherapy is less robust in patients at intermediate levels of CAC 100-400, with modest benefit for aspirin use; though statins may be reasonable if they are above 75th centile. Aspirin and statins are generally not recommended in patients with CAC <100. Repeat CAC Testing In patients with a CAC of 0, a repeat CAC may be considered in 5 years but not sooner. In patients with positive calcium score, routine re-scanning is not currently recommended. However, an annual increase in CAC of >15% or annual increase of CAC >100 units are predictive of future myocardial infarction and mortality. Cost Effectiveness of CAC Based Primary Prevention Recommendations: There is currently no data in Australia and New Zealand that CAC is cost-effective in informing primary prevention decisions. Given the cost of testing is currently borne entirely by the patient, discussion regarding the implications of CAC results should occur before CAC is recommended and undertaken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation (TPVI) with the Melody® transcatheter pulmonary valve (TPV) has demonstrated good haemodynamic and clinical outcomes in the treatment of right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) conduit dysfunction in patients with repaired congenital heart disease CHD. We present the first Australian single centre experience of patients treated with Melody TPV.Method: A prospective, observational registry was developed to monitor clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in patients with RVOT dysfunction treated with the Melody TPV (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, United States).Results: Seventeen patients underwent TPVI with Melody TPV at The Prince Charles Hospital between January 2009 and February 2016 with a median (range) age of 34 (R: 15-60). Fifteen (88%) were NYHA Class 2 dyspnoea and 11 (59%) had corrected Tetralogy of Fallot. Indication for TPVI was stenosis in eight (47%), regurgitation in two (12%) and mixed dysfunction in seven (41%). Device implantation was successful in all patients. Peak RVOT gradient was significantly reduced and there was no significant regurgitation post procedure. There was one (6%) major procedural adverse event and two (12%) major adverse events at last recorded follow-up. There were no patient deaths. Follow-up cardiac magnetic resonance imaging revealed a significant reduction in indexed right ventricular end diastolic volume.Conclusion: This study confirms the safety and effectiveness of TPVI with Melody TPV for RVOT dysfunction in repaired CHD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]