Search

Background CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) and dynamic CT myocardial perfusion imaging enhance the specificity of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for ruling out coronary artery disease (CAD). However, evidence on comparative diagnostic value remains scarce. Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA plus CT-FFR, CCTA plus CT perfusion, and sequential CCTA plus CT-FFR and CT perfusion for detecting hemodynamically relevant CAD with that of invasive angiography. Materials and Methods This secondary analysis of a prospective study included patients with chest pain referred for invasive coronary angiography at nine centers from July 2016 to September 2019. CCTA and CT perfusion were performed with third-generation dual-source CT scanners. CT-FFR was assessed on-site. Independent core laboratories analyzed CCTA alone, CCTA plus CT perfusion, CCTA plus CT-FFR, and a sequential approach involving CCTA plus CT-FFR and CT perfusion for the presence of hemodynamically relevant stenosis. Invasive coronary angiography with invasive fractional flow reserve was the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy metrics and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared with the Sign test and DeLong test. Results Of the 105 participants (mean age, 64 years ± 8 [SD]; 68 male), 49 (47%) had hemodynamically relevant stenoses at invasive coronary angiography. CCTA plus CT-FFR and CCTA plus CT perfusion showed no evidence of a difference for participant-based sensitivities (90% vs 90%, P > .99), specificities (77% vs 79%, P > .99) and vessel-based AUCs (0.84 [95% CI: 0.77, 0.91] vs 0.83 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.91], P = .90). Both had higher participant-based specificity than CCTA alone (54%, both P < .001) without evidence of a difference in sensitivity between CCTA (94%) and CCTA plus CT perfusion ( P = .50) or CCTA plus CT-FFR ( P = .63). The sequential approach combining CCTA plus CT-FFR with CT perfusion achieved higher participant-based specificity than CCTA plus CT-FFR (88% vs 77%, P = .03) without evidence of a difference in participant-based sensitivity (88% vs 90%, P > .99) and vessel-based AUC (0.85 [95% CI: 0.77, 0.93], P = .78). Compared with CCTA plus CT perfusion, the sequential approach showed no evidence of a difference in participant-based sensitivity ( P > .99), specificity ( P = .06), or vessel-based AUC ( P = .54). Conclusion There was no evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy between CCTA plus CT-FFR and CCTA plus CT perfusion for detecting hemodynamically relevant CAD. A sequential approach combining CCTA plus CT-FFR with CT perfusion led to improved participant-based specificity with no evidence of a difference in sensitivity compared with CCTA plus CT-FFR. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.: NCT02810795 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sinitsyn in this issue.

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT angiography (UHR PCD-CTA) for evaluating coronary stent patency compared to invasive coronary angiography (ICA)., Methods: Consecutive, clinically referred patients with prior coronary stent implantation were prospectively enrolled between August 2022 and March 2023 and underwent UHR PCD-CTA (collimation, 120 × 0.2 mm). Two radiologists independently analyzed image quality of the in-stent lumen using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("excellent") to 5 ("non-diagnostic"), and assessed all coronary stents for the presence of in-stent stenosis (≥ 50% lumen narrowing). The diagnostic accuracy of UHR PCD-CTA was determined, with ICA serving as the standard of reference., Results: A total of 44 coronary stents in 18 participants (mean age, 83 years ± 6 [standard deviation]; 12 women) were included in the analysis. In 3/44 stents, both readers described image quality as non-diagnostic, whereas reader 2 noted a fourth stent to have non-diagnostic image quality. In comparison to ICA, UHR PCD-CTA demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 100% (95% CI [confidence interval] 47.8, 100), 92.3% (95% CI 79.1, 98.4), and 93.2% (95% CI 81.3, 98.6) for reader 1 and 100% (95% CI 47.8, 100), 87.2% (95% CI 72.6, 95.7), and 88.6% (95% CI 75.4, 96.2) for reader 2, respectively. Both readers observed a 100% negative predictive value (36/36 stents and 34/34 stents). Stent patency inter-reader agreement was 90.1%, corresponding to a substantial Cohen's kappa value of 0.72., Conclusions: UHR PCD-CTA enables non-invasive assessment of coronary stent patency with high image quality and diagnostic accuracy., Clinical Relevance Statement: Ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT angiography represents a reliable and non-invasive method for assessing coronary stent patency. Its high negative predictive value makes it a promising alternative over invasive coronary angiography for the rule-out of in-stent stenosis., Key Points: • CT-based evaluation of coronary stent patency is limited by stent-induced artifacts and spatial resolution. • Ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT accurately evaluates coronary stent patency compared to invasive coronary angiography. • Photon-counting detector CT represents a promising method for the non-invasive rule-out of in-stent stenosis., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

To compare the diagnostic value of ultrahigh-resolution CT-angiography (UHR-CTA) compared with high-pitch spiral CTA (HPS-CTA) using a first-generation, dual-source photon-counting CT (PCD-CT) scanner for preprocedural planning of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Clinically referred patients with severe aortic valve stenosis underwent both, retrospective ECG-gated cardiac UHR-CTA (collimation: 120 × 0.2 mm) and prospective ECG-triggered aortoiliac HPS-CTA (collimation: 144 × 0.4 mm, full spectral capabilities) for TAVR planning from August 2022 to March 2023. Radiation dose was extracted from the CT reports, and the effective dose was calculated. Two radiologists analyzed UHR-CTA and HPS-CTA datasets, assessing the image quality of the aortic annulus, with regard to the lumen visibility and margin delineation using a 4-point visual-grading scale (ranges: 4 = "excellent" to 1 = "poor"). Aortic annulus area (AAA) measurements were taken for valve prosthesis sizing, with retrospective UHR-CTA serving as reference standard. A total of 64 patients were included (mean age, 81 years ± 7 SD; 28 women) in this retrospective study. HPS-CTA showed a lower radiation dose, 4.1 mSv vs. 12.6 mSv (p < 0.001). UHR-CTA demonstrated higher image quality to HPS-CTA (median score, 4 [IQR, 3-4] vs. 3 [IQR, 2-3]; p < 0.001). Quantitative assessments of AAA from both CTA datasets were strongly positively correlated (mean 477.4 ± 91.1 mm 2 on UHR-CTA and mean 476.5 ± 90.4 mm 2 on HPS-CTA, Pearson r 2  = 0.857, p < 0.001) with a mean error of 22.3 ± 24.6 mm 2 and resulted in identical valve prosthesis sizing in the majority of patients (91%). Patients with lower image quality on HPS-CTA (score value 1 or 2, n = 28) were more likely to receive different sizing recommendations (82%). Both UHR-CTA and HPS-CTA acquisitions using photon-counting CT technology provided reliable aortic annular assessments for TAVR planning. While UHR-CTA offers superior image quality, HPS-CTA is associated with lower radiation exposure. However, severely impaired image quality on HPS-CTA may impact on prosthesis sizing, suggesting that immediate post-scan image evaluations may require complementary UHR-CTA scanning., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Coronary CT angiography (cCTA) is a class 1 recommendation in the current guidelines by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for excluding significant coronary artery stenosis. To achieve optimal image quality at a low radiation dose, the imaging physician may choose different acquisition modes. Therefore, the consensus guidelines by the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) provide helpful guidance for this procedure., Method: The article provides practical recommendations for the application and acquisition of cCTA based on the current literature and our own experience., Results and Conclusion: According to current ESC guidelines, cCTA is recommended in symptomatic patients with a low or intermediate clinical likelihood for coronary artery disease. We recommend premedication with beta blockers and nitrates prior to CT acquisition under certain conditions even with the latest CT scanner generations. The most current CT scanners offer three possible scan modes for cCTA acquisition. Heart rate is the main factor for selecting the scan mode. Other factors may be coronary calcifications and body mass index (BMI)., Key Points: · CCTA is a valid method to exclude coronary artery disease in patients with a low to intermediate clinical likelihood.. · Even with the latest generation CT scanners, premedication with beta blockers and nitrates can improve image quality at low radiation exposure.. · Current CT scanners usually provide retrospective ECG gating and prospective ECG triggering. Dual-source scanners additionally provide a "high pitch" scan mode to scan the whole heart during one heartbeat, which may also be achieved using single-source scanners with broad detectors in some cases.. · Besides the available scanner technology, the choice of scan mode primarily depends on heart rate and heart rate variability (e. g., arrhythmia).., Citation Format: · Soschynski M, Hagar MT, Taron J et al. Update for the Performance of CT Coronary Angiography. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 613 - 624., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)