BACKGROUND:The presence of calcified plaque in coronary arteries can be quantified by using 0.5-mm isotropic reconstructions from 320-row CT without increased radiation dose. Little is known about reclassification of patients with non-zero Agatston scores and quantitative measures of calcified plaque using 0.5-mm reconstructions. OBJECTIVE:The aim was to compare proportions of zero vs. non-zero Agatston scores (subclinical atherosclerosis) in 0.5-mm isotropic reconstructions vs. standard 3.0-mm and CT angiography (CTA) scans on 320-row CT. METHODS:Prospectively, we quantified calcified plaque in coronary arteries in 104 patients by using non-contrast-enhanced scans with 0.5 and 3.0 mm. Coronary calcium assessment was determined by 2 observers. Clinically indicated CTA was also performed; coronary calcium assessment findings were compared with CTA. Ranked Wilcoxon test and χ2 test were performed for comparison. Reproducibility for proportion of zero vs non-zero was assessed by κ statistics. RESULTS:Median Agatston score (41.9 [interquartile range (IQR), 3.7-213.6] vs. 5.2 [IQR, 0.0-128.5]), calcium volume (53.6 mm3 [IQR, 8.1-202.3] vs. 5.1 mm(3) [IQR, 0.0-96.8],), and lesion number (10.0 [IQR, 3.5-18.5] vs. 1.0 [IQR, 0.0-6.0]) were significantly higher on 0.5-mm reconstruction (P < .0001) than on 3.0-mm reconstruction. More patients with subclinical atherosclerosis were detected on 0.5 mm than on 3.0 mm and CTA scans (76.9% vs. 53.8% vs. 54.8%; P < .0001). The κ values for inter-rater agreement were 0.94 and 0.52 on 3.0- and 0.5-mm data sets, respectively. However, when Agatston scores < 10 were excluded from analysis, the κ value rose to 0.83. CONCLUSION:Isotropic 0.5-mm reconstruction detected 23.1% and 22.1% more patients with subclinical atherosclerosis than standard 3.0-mm scans and CTA, which may be more sensitive for the detection of subclinical atherosclerosis; its potential clinical utility needs to be validated in large, prospective studies.

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is increasingly used for the assessment of coronary heart disease (CHD) in symptomatic patients. Software applications have recently been developed to facilitate efficient and accurate analysis of CCTA. This study aims to evaluate the clinical application of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) software for the detection of significant coronary stenosis on CCTA in populations with low (8%), moderate (13%), and high (27%) CHD prevalence. A total of 341 consecutive patients underwent 64-slice CCTA at 3 clinical sites in the United States. CAD software performed automatic detection of significant coronary lesions (>50% stenosis). CAD results were then compared to the consensus manual interpretation of 2 imaging experts. Data analysis was conducted for each patient and segment. The CAD had 100% sensitivity per patient across all 3 clinical sites. Specificity in the low, moderate, and high CHD prevalence populations was 64%, 41%, and 38%, respectively. The negative predictive value at the 3 clinical sites was 100%. The positive predictive value was 22%, 21%, and 38% for the low, moderate, and high CHD prevalence populations, respectively. This study demonstrates the utility of CAD software in 3 distinct clinical settings. In a low-prevalence population, such as seen in the emergency department, CAD can be used as a Computer-Aided Simple Triage tool to assist in diagnostic delineation of acute chest pain. In a higher prevalence population, CAD software is useful as an adjunct for both the experienced and inexperienced reader.

Objectives This study was designed to assess the effects on resource utilization of routine coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in triaging chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED).Background The routine use of CCTA for ED evaluation of chest pain is feasible and safe.Methods We conducted a retrospective multivariate analysis of data from two risk-matched cohorts of 894 ED patients presenting with chest pain to assess the impact of CCTA versus standard evaluation on admissions rate, length of stay, major adverse cardiovascular event rates, recidivism rates, and downstream resource utilization.Results The overall admission rate was lower with CCTA (14% vs. 40%; p < 0.001). Standard evaluation was associated with a 5.5-fold greater risk for admission (odds ratio [OR]: 5.53; p < 0.001). Expected ED length of stay with standard evaluation was about 1.6 times longer (OR: 1.55; p < 0.001). There were no differences in the rates of death and acute myocardial infarction within 30 days of the index visit between the two groups. The likelihood of returning to the ED within 30 days for recurrent chest pain was 5 times greater with standard evaluation (OR: 5.06; p = 0.022). Standard evaluation was associated with a 7-fold greater likelihood of invasive coronary angiography without revascularization (OR: 7.17; p < 0.001), while neither group was significantly more likely to receive revascularization (OR: 2.06; p = 0.193). The median radiation dose with CCTA was 5.88 mSv (n = 1039; confidence interval: 5.2 to 6.4).Conclusions The routine use of CCTA in ED evaluation of chest pain reduces healthcare resource utilization. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:543-52) (C) 2013 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation