How much can we trust MSCT coronarography?

    Authors

    Keywords

    MSCT coronarography, invasive coronarography, coronary artery disease

    DOI

    https://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2024.498

    Full Text

    **Introduction**: The primary goal of this retrospective study was to assess the use of Multi-Slice Computed Tomography (MSCT) coronary angiography in comparison with conventional invasive coronary angiography for the detection of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) at Dubrava University Hospital over a one-year period. **Patients and Methods**: From February 2022 to February 2023, 283 patients with symptoms of coronary artery disease were scheduled to undergo MSCT coronary angiography; however, 12 were found to have contraindications for the procedure due to arrhythmia and chronic kidney disease. **Results**: In total, CT coronary angiography was performed on 271 patients, of whom 86 tested positive for coronary artery disease and required conventional coronary angiography. Notably, only 36% (31 patients) had significant coronary disease that necessitated intervention or functional assessment of coronary stenosis. **Conclusion**: Although MSCT coronary angiography is a non-invasive and cost-effective method for evaluating coronary artery disease—with the added advantage of imaging plaque compositions—it demonstrated a tendency to overestimate the degree of stenosis, leading to false-positive results. (1) Consequently such overestimations can result in unnecessary follow-up procedures, increased healthcare costs, and potential patient anxiety.

    Literature

    1. Gorenoi V, Schönermark MP, Hagen A. CT coronary angiography vs. invasive coronary angiography in CHD. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2012;8:Doc02. https://doi.org/10.3205/hta000100
    Cardiologia Croatica
    Back to search

    How much can we trust MSCT coronarography?

    Extended Abstract
    Issue11-12
    Published
    Pages498
    PDF via DOIhttps://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2024.498
    MSCT coronarography
    invasive coronarography
    coronary artery disease

    Authors

    Diana Rudan*ORCIDDubrava University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia
    Tomo SvagušaORCIDDubrava University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia
    Marta PuškadijaORCIDDubrava University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia
    Stipe RadošORCIDDubrava University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia
    Šime ManolaORCIDDubrava University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia

    *Correspondence email: drudan3@yahoo.com

    Full Text

    Introduction: The primary goal of this retrospective study was to assess the use of Multi-Slice Computed Tomography (MSCT) coronary angiography in comparison with conventional invasive coronary angiography for the detection of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) at Dubrava University Hospital over a one-year period.

    Patients and Methods: From February 2022 to February 2023, 283 patients with symptoms of coronary artery disease were scheduled to undergo MSCT coronary angiography; however, 12 were found to have contraindications for the procedure due to arrhythmia and chronic kidney disease.

    Results: In total, CT coronary angiography was performed on 271 patients, of whom 86 tested positive for coronary artery disease and required conventional coronary angiography. Notably, only 36% (31 patients) had significant coronary disease that necessitated intervention or functional assessment of coronary stenosis.

    Conclusion: Although MSCT coronary angiography is a non-invasive and cost-effective method for evaluating coronary artery disease—with the added advantage of imaging plaque compositions—it demonstrated a tendency to overestimate the degree of stenosis, leading to false-positive results. (1) Consequently such overestimations can result in unnecessary follow-up procedures, increased healthcare costs, and potential patient anxiety.

    Literature

    1. 1.
      Gorenoi V, Schönermark MP, Hagen A. CT coronary angiography vs. invasive coronary angiography in CHD. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2012;8:Doc02.DOI