This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (45)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Renal Diseases, Other  • Angiology  • Computed Tomography  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Alert me on articles by topic

Mario J. Garcia, MD; Jonathan Lessick, MD, DSc; Martin H. K. Hoffmann, MD; for the CATSCAN Study Investigators

JAMA. 2006;296:403-411.

Context  Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) has been proposed as a noninvasive method to evaluate coronary anatomy.

Objective  To determine the diagnostic accuracy of 16-row MDCT for the detection of obstructive coronary disease based exclusively on quantitative analysis and performed in a multicenter study.

Design, Setting, and Patients  Eleven participating sites prospectively enrolled 238 patients who were clinically referred for nonemergency coronary angiography from June 2004 through March 2005. Following a low-dose MDCT scan to evaluate coronary artery calcium, 187 patients with an Agatston score of less than 600 underwent contrast-enhanced MDCT. Conventional angiography was performed 1 to 14 days after MDCT. Conventional angiographic and MDCT studies were analyzed by independent core laboratories.

Main Outcome Measures  Segment-based and patient-based sensitivities and specificities for the detection of luminal stenosis of more than 50% (of luminal diameter) and more than 70% (of luminal diameter) based on quantitative coronary angiography.

Results  Of 1629 nonstented segments larger than 2 mm in diameter, there were 89 (5.5%) in 59 (32%) of 187 patients with stenosis of more than 50% by conventional angiography. Of the 1629 segments, 71% were evaluable on MDCT. After censoring all nonevaluable segments as positive, the sensitivity for detecting more than 50% luminal stenoses was 89%; specificity, 65%; positive predictive value, 13%; and negative predictive value, 99%. In a patient-based analysis, the sensitivity for detecting patients with at least 1 positive segment was 98%; specificity, 54%; positive predictive value, 50%; and negative predictive value, 99%. After censoring all nonevaluable segments as positive, the sensitivity for detecting more than 70% luminal stenoses was 94%; specificity, 67%; positive predictive value, 6%; and negative predictive value, 99%. In a patient-based analysis, the sensitivity for detecting patients with at least 1 positive segment was 94%; specificity, 51%; positive predictive value, 28%; and negative predictive value, 98%.

Conclusions  The results of this study indicate that MDCT coronary angiography performed with 16-row scanners is limited by a high number of nonevaluable cases and a high false-positive rate. Thus, its routine implementation in clinical practice is not justified. Nevertheless, given its high sensitivity and negative predictive value, 16-row MDCT may be useful in excluding coronary disease in selected patients in whom a false-positive or inconclusive stress test result is suspected.

Author Affiliations: Department of Cardiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr Garcia); Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel (Dr Lessick); Philips Medical Systems, Highland Heights, Ohio (Dr Lessick); and University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany (Dr Hoffman).

RELATED LETTERS

Use of Computed Tomography to Assess Coronary Artery Stenosis
Abdul Hakeem, Sabha Bhatti, and Carrie B. Chapman
JAMA. 2006;296(21):2556.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of Computed Tomography to Assess Coronary Artery Stenosis—Reply
Mario J. Garcia
JAMA. 2006;296(21):2556-2557.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Cardiac CT and CT coronary angiography: technology and application
Roberts et al.
Heart 2008;94:781-792.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening High-Risk Patients With Computed Tomography Angiography
Gottlieb and Lima
Circulation 2008;117:1318-1332.
FULL TEXT  

All High-Risk Patients Should Not Be Screened With Computed Tomographic Angiography
Kramer
Circulation 2008;117:1333-1339.
FULL TEXT  

Dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography: influence of obesity, calcium load, and heart rate on diagnostic accuracy
Alkadhi et al.
Eur Heart J 2008;29:766-776.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Another Step Forward in CT Angiography
Lima
J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2008;1:187-189.
FULL TEXT  

Cardiac computed tomography: indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements: Report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology
Schroeder et al.
Eur Heart J 2008;29:531-556.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Back to the future: coronary CT angiography using prospective ECG triggering
Schoenhagen
Eur Heart J 2008;29:153-154.
FULL TEXT  

Preoperative screening for coronary disease: who needs it and how do you do it?
Sutaria and Mayet
Heart 2007;93:1497-1499.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Replacing diagnostic catheterization with coronary CT angiography: the final frontier
Schoepf et al.
Eur Heart J 2007;28:2305-2306.
FULL TEXT  

Radiation Dose to Patients From Cardiac Diagnostic Imaging
Einstein et al.
Circulation 2007;116:1290-1305.
FULL TEXT  

Artifacts in ECG-Synchronized MDCT Coronary Angiography
Kroft et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007;189:581-591.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reliable High-Speed Coronary Computed Tomography in Symptomatic Patients
Weustink et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:786-794.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Visualizing the Coronaries in Patients Presenting With Heart Failure of Unknown Etiology
Lima and Hare
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2051-2052.
FULL TEXT  

Diagnostic Accuracy of Multidetector Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography in Patients With Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Andreini et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2044-2050.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Coronary Angiography by Computed Tomography: Coronary Imaging Evolves
Raff and Goldstein
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1830-1833.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Computed Tomographic Angiography: More Than Just a Pretty Picture?
Redberg
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1827-1829.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Year in Atherothrombosis
Sanz et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1740-1749.
FULL TEXT  

Non-invasive tests in coronary artery disease: are we facing a fork in the road?
Garcia
Heart 2007;93:413-414.
FULL TEXT  

New Technology for Noninvasive Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease
Di Carli and Hachamovitch
Circulation 2007;115:1464-1480.
FULL TEXT  

Evidence, Appropriateness, And Technology Assessment In Cardiology: A Case Study Of Computed Tomography
Redberg
Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:86-95.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of Computed Tomography to Assess Coronary Artery Stenosis
Hakeem et al.
JAMA 2006;296:2556-2556.
FULL TEXT  

Diagnostic Performance of Multislice Spiral Computed Tomography of Coronary Arteries as Compared With Conventional Invasive Coronary Angiography: A Meta-Analysis
Hamon et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1896-1910.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

JournalScan
Malik
Heart 2006;92:1535-1536.
FULL TEXT  

CT Angiography: High False-Positive Rate
Journal Watch Cardiology 2006;2006:1-1.
FULL TEXT