HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Appendix E1 Appendix E2 Table E1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Vanhoenacker, P. K. Articles by Hunink, M. G. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Vanhoenacker, P. K. Articles by Hunink, M. G. M.

Diagnostic Performance of Multidetector CT Angiography for Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-analysis¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging (P.K.V., R.V.H., I.D., L.R.V.H.) and Cardiovascular Center Aalst (I.D., W.W.), OLV Ziekenhuis Aalst, Moorselbaan 164, 9300 Aalst, Belgium; and Program for the Assessment of Radiological Technology, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Department of Radiology, Erasmus MC–University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (M.H.H., M.G.M.H.). Received July 14, 2006; revision requested September 18; revision received November 27; final version accepted January 2, 2007. Address correspondence to P.K.V. (e-mail: piet{at}vanhoenacker.be).

Purpose: To review the literature on the diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomographic (CT) angiography for assessment of symptomatic coronary artery disease, with conventional coronary angiography as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods: A PubMed and manual search of the literature published between January 1998 and May 2006 on use of multidetector CT angiography compared with coronary angiography in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease was performed. Summary estimates of diagnostic odds ratio, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Random-effects models were used to compare the diagnostic performance of four-, 16-, and 64-detector CT angiographic units, and the proportion of nonassessable coronary arterial segments was evaluated.

Results: Fifty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis: 22 studies with four-detector CT angiography, 26 with 16-detector CT angiography, and six with 64-detector CT angiography. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting a greater than 50% stenosis per segment were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88, 0.97) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.97) for 64-detector CT angiography, 0.83 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.90) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.97) for 16-detector CT angiography, and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.88) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.95) for four-detector CT angiography, respectively. Results of regression analysis indicated that the diagnostic performance significantly improved with the newer generations of multidetector CT scanners (64- and 16-detector vs four-detector units), adjusted for exclusion of nonassessable segments, and contrast agent concentration used (P < .05). Simultaneously, the nonassessable proportion of segments significantly decreased with the newer generations of multidetector CT scanners, adjusted for heart rate, prevalence of significant disease, and mean age.

Conclusion: With the newer generations of multidetector CT scanners, the diagnostic performance for the assessment of coronary artery disease has significantly improved, and the proportion of nonassessable segments has decreased.

Supplemental material:
radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/244/2/419/DC1
radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/244/2/419/DC2
radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/244/2/419/DC3

© RSNA, 2007

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. M. Takakuwa and E. J. Halpern Evaluation of a "Triple Rule-Out" Coronary CT Angiography Protocol: Use of 64-Section CT in Low-to-Moderate Risk Emergency Department Patients Suspected of Having Acute Coronary Syndrome Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 438 - 446. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. Schuijf, J. M. van Werkhoven, G. Pundziute, J. W. Jukema, I. Decramer, M. P. Stokkel, P. Dibbets-Schneider, M. J. Schalij, J. H.C. Reiber, E. E. van der Wall, et al. Invasive Versus Noninvasive Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., March 1, 2008; 1(2): 190 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D Schuijf and J. J Bax CT angiography: an alternative to nuclear perfusion imaging? Heart, March 1, 2008; 94(3): 255 - 257. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Schroeder, S. Achenbach, F. Bengel, C. Burgstahler, F. Cademartiri, P. de Feyter, R. George, P. Kaufmann, A. F. Kopp, J. Knuuti, et al. Cardiac computed tomography: indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements: Report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology Eur. Heart J., February 2, 2008; 29(4): 531 - 556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]