Heart Imaging: the accuracy of the 64-MSCT in the detection of coronary artery disease

At present, coronary angiography represents the gold standard technique for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Our aim is to compare the conventional coronary angiography to the coronary 64-multislice spiral computed tomography (64-MSCT), a new and non-invasive cardiac imaging technique. The last generation of MSCT scanners show a better imaging quality, due to a greater spatial and temporal resolution. Four expert observers (two cardiologists and two radiologists) have compared the angiographic data with the accuracy of the 64-MSCT in the detection and evaluation of coronary vessels stenoses. From the data obtained, the sensibility, the specificity and the accuracy of the coronary 64-MSCT have been defined. We have enrolled 75 patients (57 male, 18 female, mean age 61.83 +/- 10.38; range 30-80 years) with known or suspected coronary artery disease. The above population has been divided into 3 groups: Group A (Gr. A) with 40 patients (mean age 60.7 +/- 12.5) affected by both non-significant and significant coronary artery disease; Group B (Gr. B) with 25 patients (mean age 60.3 +/- 14.6) who underwent to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); Group C (Gr. C) with 10 patients (mean age 54.20 +/- 13.7) without any coronary angiographic stenoses. All the patients underwent non-invasive exams, conventional coronary angiography and coronary 64-MSCT. The comparison of the data obtained has been carried out according to a per group analysis, per patient analysis and per segment analysis. Moreover, the accuracy of the 64-MSCT has been defined for the detection of >75%, 50-75% and 75%, 32% stenoses 50-75% and 31% stenoses 75%, 29% stenoses 50-75% and 38% stenoses <50%). In-stent disease has been shown in only 4 of the 29 coronary stents identified. In Gr. A, coronary 64-MSCT has confirmed the angiographic results in the 93% of cases (sensibility 93%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100% and negative predictive value 83%) while, in Gr. B, this confirm has been obtained only in 64% of cases (sensibility 64%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100% and negative predictive value 50%). In Gr. C, we have observed a complete agreement between angiographic and CT data (sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value 100%). According to a per segment analysis, the angiographic results have been confirmed in 98% of cases in Gr. A (sensibility 98%, specificity 94%, positive predictive value 90% and negative predictive value 94%) but only in 55% of cases in Gr. B (sensibility 55%, specificity 90%, positive predictive value 71% and negative predictive value 81%). Moreover, only 1 of the 4 in-stent restenoses has been detected (sensibility 25%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100% and negative predictive value 77%). Coronary angiography has detected a greater number of coronary stenoses than the 64-MSCT. 64-MSCT has demonstrated better accuracy in the study of coronary vessels wider than 2 mm, while its accuracy is lower for smaller vessels (diameter < 2.5 mm) and for the identification of in-stent restenosis, because there is a reduced image quality for these vessels and therefore a lower accuracy in the coronary stenosis detection. Nevertheless, 64-MSCT shows high accuracy and it can be considered a comparative but not a substitutive exam of the coronary angiography. Several technical limitations of the 64-MSCT are responsible of its lower accuracy versus the conventional coronary angiography, but solving these technical problems could give us a new non-invasive imaging technique for the study of coronary stents