Accuracy of 16-Row Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis

Abstract

The results of this study indicate that MDCT coronary angiography performed with 16-row scanners is limited by a high number of nonevaluable cases and a high false-positive rate. Thus, its routine implementation in clinical practice is not justified. Nevertheless, given its high sensitivity and negative predictive value, 16-row MDCT may be useful in excluding coronary disease in selected patients in whom a false-positive or inconclusive stress test result is suspected.

Effect of Decrease in Heart Rate Variability on the Diagnostic Accuracy of 64-MDCT Coronary Angiography

“…Nonevaluable segments were censored as positive findings in the vessel-based and patientbased analyses, reflecting the intention-todiagnose nature of the study [20]. The statistics were calculated in segment-based and patientbased analyses (presence of at least one significant coronary artery stenosis or absence of any significant stenosis in each patient).…”

Transitioning from 16-slice to 64-slice multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery disease: Are we really making progress?

“…In these studies, 64-slice MDCT was able to assess 97% of all coronary artery segments visualized by both CCA and MDCT (Table 1), which is approximately 5% more than previous 16-slice technology. This improvement was noted despite the inclusion of 64-slice MDCT studies that analyzed all vessel segments, compared with 16-slice MDCT studies, which generally excluded the analysis of segments smaller than 1.5 mm in diameter (Table 2) (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37). When compared with CCA, 64-slice MDCT had a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 96% for the assessment of coronary artery stenosis (more than 50% luminal narrowing), similar to results obtained with 16-slice MDCT.…”

Coronary calcification: Achilles’ heel in the assessment for coronary artery disease in patients with symptomatic angina?

“…Early studies comparing the diagnostic capabilities of CTCA with ICA often excluded patients with elevated baseline CS as a result of the negative impact of high CS on CTCA accuracy or the inability to assess the presence or absence of stenosis with increased calcification [2][3][4]. Studies which did include arterial segments with high levels of calcification usually denoted a significant decline in the diagnostic capability of the test.…”