Volume 2, Issue 6 , Pages 372-378, November 2008
Use of multidetector computed tomography after mildly abnormal myocardial perfusion stress testing in a large single-specialty cardiology practice
Background
Data are limited on using 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) as a gatekeeper to cardiac catheterization in patients with mild abnormalities on myocardial perfusion stress imaging (MPI).
Objective
We compared the rate of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) within 6 months after finding mildly abnormal MPI results before and after implementing 64-slice MDCT.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study included patients referred for follow-up based on a mildly abnormal MPI. Pre- and post-MDCT cohorts were matched according to age, sex, prior history of coronary artery disease (CAD), and presence of clinical symptoms (chest pain or exertional dyspnea or both). Case matching resulted in 154 patients in each cohort. The primary endpoint was the rate of ICA.
Results
From the clinical evaluation or MDCT results, 87 patients were referred for ICA, 60 (39%) in the pre-MDCT cohort and 27 (18%) in the post-MDCT cohort. Among those referred for ICA, 22 (14%) in the pre-MDCT cohort and 17 (11%) in the post-MDCT cohort underwent revascularization. Given the similar rate of revascularizations in both cohorts, we estimate that patients in the post-MDCT cohort were 86% less likely to receive ICA compared with patients in the pre-MDCT cohort (odds ratio = 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.33). During 6 months of follow-up, no clinical events were observed in either cohort for patients not referred to ICA.
Conclusion
For patients with mildly abnormal MPI followed by clinical evaluation, MDCT examination was associated with a significant reduction in rate of referral to ICA.
Keywords: Invasive coronary angiography (ICA), Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), Myocardial perfusion stress imaging (MPI), Myocardial perfusion stress testing, Revascularization
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Conflict of interest: J.L. Hines and C. Biga are members of the GE Speakers’ Bureau. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.
This study was supported by GE Healthcare. However, GE Healthcare had no role in study design or in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. GE Healthcare provided support to S2 Statistical Solutions, Inc. (Cincinnati, OH) for an independent medical writer (J.K. Noel) to prepare the initial draft of the manuscript, based on an outline, results, and references provided by the study authors, but GE Healthcare had no role in drafting or editing the manuscript or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
PII: S1934-5925(08)00615-1
doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2008.09.002
© 2008 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 2, Issue 6 , Pages 372-378, November 2008
