Key result
Wide-FOV CCTA identifies extracardiac findings requiring treatment in only ~0.3% of patients.
Why the study?
The clinical and economic impact of incidental extracardiac abnormalities detected on coronary CT angiography and the cost-effectiveness of wide versus limited field-of-view reporting were unclear.
Does routine assessment of extracardiac structures on wide FOV CCTA improve clinical outcomes cost-effectively in patients undergoing CCTA?
Cross-Sectional (n=4,340)
No
Does routine assessment of extracardiac structures on wide FOV CCTA improve clinical outcomes cost-effectively in patients undergoing CCTA?
Routine wide field-of-view assessment for extracardiac abnormalities on CCTA has a low yield for actionable findings and high costs, suggesting limited cardiac FOV may be more cost-effective.
May not support routine wide FOV on CCTA; leaves open optimal protocols in prospective studies.
OBJECTIVE: When reporting coronary CT angiography (CCTA), extracardiac structures are routinely assessed, usually on a wide field-of-view (FOV) reconstruction. We performed a retrospective observational cross-sectional study to investigate the impact of incidental extracardiac abnormalities on resource utilisation and treatment, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: All patients undergoing CCTA at a single institution between January 2012 and March 2020 were identified. The indication for CCTA was chest pain or dyspnoea in >90%. Patients with ≥1 significant extracardiac findings were selected. Clinical follow-up, investigations and treatment were documented, and costs were calculated. RESULTS: 4340 patients underwent CCTA; 717 extracardiac abnormalities were identified in 687 individuals (15.8%; age 62±12 years; male 336, 49%). The abnormality was already known in 162 (23.6%). Lung nodules and cysts were the most common abnormalities (296, 43.1%). Clinical and/or imaging follow-up was pursued in 292 patients (42.5%). Treatment was required by 14 patients (0.3% of the entire population), including lung resection for adenocarcinoma in six (0.1%). All but two abnormalities (both adenocarcinomas) were identifiable on the limited cardiac FOV. The cost of reporting (£20) and follow-up (£33) of extracardiac abnormalities was £53 per patient. The cost per discounted quality-adjusted life year was £23 930, increasing to £46 674 for reporting the wide FOV rather than the cardiac FOV alone. CONCLUSIONS: Extracardiac abnormalities are common on CCTA, but identification and follow-up are costly. The few requiring treatment are usually identifiable without review of the wide FOV. The way in which CCTAs are scrutinised for extracardiac abnormalities in a resource-limited healthcare system should be questioned.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kelion et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Chest pain or dyspnea (n=4,340). Wide field-of-view (FOV) reconstruction on CCTA vs. Cardiac FOV alone was evaluated on Resource utilisation, treatment, and cost-effectiveness of incidental extracardiac abnormalities. Incidental extracardiac abnormalities were found in 15.8% of CCTA patients, but only 0.3% required treatment, with wide FOV reporting increasing the cost per QALY to £46,674.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: