Key result
64-slice computed tomography demonstrated 95% accuracy, 90% sensitivity, and 97% specificity for identifying ischaemic aetiology of heart failure compared to quantitative coronary angiography.
Why the study?
Does 64-slice computed tomography accurately diagnose ischemic heart failure compared to quantitative coronary angiography in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy?
Cross-Sectional (n=93)
Does 64-slice computed tomography accurately diagnose ischemic heart failure compared to quantitative coronary angiography in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy?
64-slice CT offers a highly accurate, non-invasive alternative to invasive angiography for diagnosing ischemic etiology in patients with heart failure.
May support non-invasive CT for ischemic HF etiology; leaves open need for prospective validation before practice change.
AIMS: We evaluated the accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography (CT) to identify ischaemic aetiology of heart failure (IHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-three consecutive patients in sinus rhythm with dilated cardiomyopathy but without suspicion of coronary artery disease (CAD) were enrolled when admitted for angiography. Accuracy of CT to detect significant stenosis (>50% lumen narrowing) was compared with quantitative coronary angiography. IHF was defined as a significant stenosis on left main or proximal left anterior descending artery or two or more vessels. Forty-three out of 1395 segments (3%) were heavily calcified and excluded. CT correctly assessed 103 of 142 (73%) significant stenosis and identified 46 of 50 (92%) patients without and 42 of 43 (98%) patients with CAD, 60 of 62 (97%) patients without and 28 of 31 (90%) patients with IHF. Overall, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CT for identifying CAD by segment was 96, 73, 99, 92, and 97%, respectively; by patient was 95, 98, 92, 91, and 98%, respectively; and for identifying IHF was 95, 90, 97, 93, and 95%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive 64-slice CT assessment of the extent of CAD may offer a valid alternative to angiography for the diagnosis of IHF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghostine et al. (2008) conducted a cross-sectional in Dilated cardiomyopathy without suspicion of coronary artery disease (n=93). 64-slice computed tomography (CT) vs. Quantitative coronary angiography was evaluated on Accuracy for identifying ischaemic aetiology of heart failure (IHF) by patient. 64-slice computed tomography demonstrated 95% accuracy, 90% sensitivity, and 97% specificity for identifying ischaemic aetiology of heart failure compared to quantitative coronary angiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: