These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Coronary computed tomography angiography and calcium scoring in routine clinical practice for identification of patients who require revascularization.
    Author: Urbonaviciene G, Isaksen C, Urbonavicius S, Buhl JS, Johansen JK, Nielsen AH, Nørgaard KS, Nørgaard A, Frost L.
    Journal: Arch Cardiovasc Dis; 2016; 109(6-7):412-21. PubMed ID: 27215378.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The predictive value of CCTA to predict coronary artery disease is high in particular in the absence of coronary calcification. However, the consideration of both CCTA and the calcium score, in addition to the risk factors to determine the indication for coronary revascularization, has not been yet studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 2302 patients (mean age: 60±9.8 years, 46% men), without known coronary artery disease (CAD), who underwent 320-row CCTA. Logistic regression, c-statistic and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were used to assess the role of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) in predicting revascularization after CCTA. RESULTS: The revascularization rates were 0.75% in patients with a CACS of 0, and there were no adverse events during the follow-up period. The revascularization rates were 3.3% in patients with a CACS of 1-99, 15.4% in patients with a CACS of 100-399, 25.6% in patients with a CACS of 400-999, and 42.4% in patients with a CACS≥1000. The crude and adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for revascularization per CACS group category were 2.89 (2.53-2.3) and 2.71 (2.33-3.15), respectively; the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.85 (0.83-0.88). The addition of CACS to conventional risk factors improved the accuracy of risk prediction model for revascularization (AUC 0.74 vs 0.63, P=0.001), but it did not reclassify a substantial proportion of patients with positive CACS to risk categories (NRI=-0.023, P=0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The 320-row CCTA might rule out CAD in low- to intermediate-risk patients. However, its accuracy in identifying patients who require revascularization is limited. The CACS added to the conventional risk factors did not improve the identification of patients who require revascularization.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]