Why the study?
Non-invasive technologies are needed to accurately identify high-risk coronary plaques, and Ukrainian studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of 640-slice CTCA in different forms of CAD were lacking.
Does 640-sliced CTCA accurately diagnose coronary artery lesions compared to invasive coronary angiography in patients with chronic CAD?
Observational (n=201)
No
Does 640-sliced CTCA accurately diagnose coronary artery lesions compared to invasive coronary angiography in patients with chronic CAD?
640-slice CTCA is a safe and highly accurate non-invasive method for the qualitative and quantitative diagnosis of atherosclerotic coronary artery lesions, comparable to invasive coronary angiography.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CTCA shows high accuracy vs invasive angiography in chronic CAD; supports non-invasive use but leaves open need for outcome trials.
Non-invasive coronary arteries (CA) visualization experiences fast progress recently. Existing evidence-based dataand trials show that there is a great need in non-invasive technologies able to trustworthy and accurately identifyCA high risk atherosclerotic plaques (AP) and provide more insights into atherosclerosis pathophysiology in individ-ual patents, being accurate qualitative and quantitative methods of primary diagnosis and answer to therapeuticintervention indicators in patients with coronary artery (CAD). Until now in Ukraine there were no studies evaluat-ing accuracy of last generation 640-sliced computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in diagnosing of dif-ferent CAD forms.Objective of the study was to study diagnostic accuracy of CTCA compared to invasive coronary angiography (iCAG)in the patients with different forms of chronic CAD before surgeon revascularization.Materials and methods. From I.2019 to V.2021 we prospectively studied 201 patients with different chronic CADforms (76.6 % men and 23.4 % women) aged (61.8 ± 9.2) years hospitalized to our center for diagnostic work-upand decision about primary or secondary revascularization (coronary aortic bypass (CABG) or percutaneous (PCI)intervention). All patients underwent planned CTCA and iCAG.Results and conclusions. There were no significant complication duing procedures performed. Totally 2412 coro-nary segments were visualized and studied. Coronary calcium index (CI) highly significantly correlated with overallburden and severity of atherosclerotic process (r = 0,73, р < 0.0001). CTCA compared to iCAG showed no false-nega-tive results and only 6 (2.99 %) false positive results in cases of insignificant lesions. There was no significant dif-ference in diagnostic accuracy for significant stenoses with very high accuracy for overall vessels lesions quantityand burden (r = 0.95, р < 0.0001) with very high prognostic method accuracy (AUC 0.99; OR >>1000, р < 0.0001),making high multi-sliced CTCA safe and extremely accurate method for qualitative and quantitative diagnosis of ath-erosclerotic CA lesions absolutely comparable to iCAG, including hemodynamic significance evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lazoryshynets et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Chronic coronary artery disease (n=201). 640-slice computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) vs. Invasive coronary angiography (iCAG) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for significant coronary stenoses (AUC 0.99, p=<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: