Why the study?
Does CTA-derived left ventricular function analysis improve prognostic prediction over anatomic assessment of CAD alone in patients with known or suspected CAD?
Does CTA-derived left ventricular function analysis improve prognostic prediction over anatomic assessment of CAD alone in patients with known or suspected CAD?
CTA-derived left ventricular function analysis (specifically LVEF < 49% and LVESV > 90 mL) provides incremental prognostic value beyond standard anatomic assessment of coronary artery disease.
May refine CAD risk stratification beyond anatomy alone; leaves open prospective validation before changing practice.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic value of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTA)-derived left ventricular (LV) function analysis and to assess its incremental prognostic value over the detection of significant stenosis using CTA. METHODS: In 728 patients (400 males, mean age 55 ± 12 years) with known or suspected CAD, the presence of significant stenosis (≥ 50% stenosis) and LV function were assessed using CTA. LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) were calculated. LV function was assessed as a continuous variable and using cutoff values (LVEDV > 215 mL, LVESV > 90 mL, LVEF < 49%). The following events were combined in a composite end-point: all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unstable angina pectoris requiring hospitalization. RESULTS: On CTA, a significant stenosis was observed in 221 patients (30%). During follow-up [median 765 days, 25-75th percentile: 493-978] an event occurred in 45 patients (6.2%). After multivariate correction for clinical risk factors and CTA, LVEF < 49% and LVESV > 90 mL were independent predictors of events with an incremental prognostic value over clinical risk factors and CTA. CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that LV function analysis provides independent and incremental prognostic information beyond anatomic assessment of CAD using CTA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graaf et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: