Diagnostic performance of quantitative coronary artery disease assessment using computed tomography in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve implantation.
CAD
CTA
Computed tomography angiography
Coronary artery disease
Invasive angiography
QCA
TAVI
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Journal
BMC cardiovascular disorders
ISSN: 1471-2261
Titre abrégé: BMC Cardiovasc Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968539
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 04 2022
18 04 2022
Historique:
received:
07
09
2021
accepted:
10
04
2022
entrez:
19
4
2022
pubmed:
20
4
2022
medline:
21
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a cornerstone in the pre- transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of CTA and coronary artery calcium score (CACS) for CAD evaluation compared to invasive coronary angiography in a cohort of TAVI patients. In consecutive TAVI patients without prior coronary revascularization and device implants, CAD was assessment by quantitative analysis in CTA. (a) Patients with non-evaluable segments were classified as obstructive CAD. (b) In patients with non-evaluable segments a CACS cut-off of 100 was applied for obstructive CAD. The reference standard was quantitative invasive coronary angiography (QCA, i.e. ≥ 50% stenosis). 100 consecutive patients were retrospectively included, age was 82.3 ± 6.5 years and 30% of patients had CAD. In 16% of the patients, adequate visualization of the entire coronary tree (all 16 segments) was possible with CTA, while 84% had at least one segment which was not evaluable for CAD analysis due to impaired image quality. On a per-patient analysis, where patients with low image quality were classified as CAD, CTA showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 88.4-100.0), specificity of 11.4% (95% CI 5.1-21.3), PPV of 32.6% (95% CI 30.8-34.5), NPV of 100% and diagnostic accuracy of 38% (95% CI 28.5-48.3) for obstructive CAD. When applying a combined approach of CTA (in patients with good image quality) and CACS (in patients with low image quality), the sensitivity and NPV remained at 100% and obstructive CAD could be ruled out in 20% of the TAVI patients, versus 8% using CTA alone. In routinely acquired pre-TAVI CTA, the image quality was insufficient in a high proportion of patients for the assessment of the entire coronary artery tree. However, when adding CACS in patients with low image quality to quantitative CTA assessment in patients with good image quality, obstructive CAD could be ruled-out in 1/5 of the patients and may therefore constitute a strategy to streamline pre-procedural workup, and reduce risk, radiation and costs in selected TAVI patients without prior coronary revascularization or device implants.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a cornerstone in the pre- transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of CTA and coronary artery calcium score (CACS) for CAD evaluation compared to invasive coronary angiography in a cohort of TAVI patients.
METHODS
In consecutive TAVI patients without prior coronary revascularization and device implants, CAD was assessment by quantitative analysis in CTA. (a) Patients with non-evaluable segments were classified as obstructive CAD. (b) In patients with non-evaluable segments a CACS cut-off of 100 was applied for obstructive CAD. The reference standard was quantitative invasive coronary angiography (QCA, i.e. ≥ 50% stenosis).
RESULTS
100 consecutive patients were retrospectively included, age was 82.3 ± 6.5 years and 30% of patients had CAD. In 16% of the patients, adequate visualization of the entire coronary tree (all 16 segments) was possible with CTA, while 84% had at least one segment which was not evaluable for CAD analysis due to impaired image quality. On a per-patient analysis, where patients with low image quality were classified as CAD, CTA showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 88.4-100.0), specificity of 11.4% (95% CI 5.1-21.3), PPV of 32.6% (95% CI 30.8-34.5), NPV of 100% and diagnostic accuracy of 38% (95% CI 28.5-48.3) for obstructive CAD. When applying a combined approach of CTA (in patients with good image quality) and CACS (in patients with low image quality), the sensitivity and NPV remained at 100% and obstructive CAD could be ruled out in 20% of the TAVI patients, versus 8% using CTA alone.
CONCLUSION
In routinely acquired pre-TAVI CTA, the image quality was insufficient in a high proportion of patients for the assessment of the entire coronary artery tree. However, when adding CACS in patients with low image quality to quantitative CTA assessment in patients with good image quality, obstructive CAD could be ruled-out in 1/5 of the patients and may therefore constitute a strategy to streamline pre-procedural workup, and reduce risk, radiation and costs in selected TAVI patients without prior coronary revascularization or device implants.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35436856
doi: 10.1186/s12872-022-02623-8
pii: 10.1186/s12872-022-02623-8
pmc: PMC9014581
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
178Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Eur Radiol. 2017 May;27(5):1963-1970
pubmed: 27562479
Clin Res Cardiol. 2015 Jun;104(6):471-80
pubmed: 25559245
Am J Cardiol. 2011 Nov 15;108(10):1470-7
pubmed: 21855831
Circulation. 1999 May 4;99(17):2345-57
pubmed: 10226103
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Jul;8(7):e002025
pubmed: 26160830
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 14;69(10):1313-1346
pubmed: 28063810
Circulation. 2013 Jul 16;128(3):244-53
pubmed: 23748467
Heart. 2008 Sep;94(9):1154-61
pubmed: 18032458
Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 27;9(1):19942
pubmed: 31882777
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2019 Jul 1;5(3):242-251
pubmed: 30304513
Am Heart J. 2011 Jun;161(6):1106-13
pubmed: 21641357
Acad Radiol. 2010 Feb;17(2):201-6
pubmed: 19944630
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015 Jan-Feb;9(1):31-41
pubmed: 25576406
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 May 1;21(5):522-532
pubmed: 31408104
J Clin Med. 2020 May 27;9(6):
pubmed: 32471233
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 May;6(5):452-61
pubmed: 23602458
Neth Heart J. 2018 Dec;26(12):591-599
pubmed: 30178209
Circulation. 1975 Apr;51(4 Suppl):5-40
pubmed: 1116248
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Mar 15;15(4):827-32
pubmed: 2407762
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017 Sep - Oct;11(5):338-346
pubmed: 28662835
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Jan;13(1 Pt 1):124-139
pubmed: 31103575
Radiology. 2015 Apr;275(1):80-8
pubmed: 25393848
Am Heart J. 2014 Sep;168(3):332-9
pubmed: 25173545