II. Definition
- Coronary Artery CT Imaging for atherosclerosis
III. Indications
- See advantages and disadvantages below
-
Low Risk Acute Coronary Syndrome Management risk stratification
- TIMI Score 0 to 2 AND
- Negative cardiac biomarkers (e.g. Troponin) AND
- No acute Electrocardiogram changes
- Other uses
- Consider in patients with known perfusion defects on prior imaging
IV. Contraindications
- Absolute contraindications
- Anaphylaxis to IV Contrast Dye
- Relative contraindications
- Pregnancy
- Renal Insufficiency
V. Precautions
- Coronary CT Angiography (CCTA) is best used in Low Risk Chest Pain
- As with stress testing, avoid in patients at too low of risk (False Positives)
- Avoid in moderate to high risk patients who would more likely benefit from Coronary Angiography
- Avoid in patients over 65 years old due to higher risk of CAD
- However, in Low Risk Chest Pain, there is high risk of False Positive tests and unnecessary cardiac catheterization
- Risk of serious short-term adverse coronary event in Low Risk Chest Pain is roughly 0.2-0.3% (2-3 per 1000)
- CCTA has a Test Specificity at best of 90%, or 100 patients in 1000 tested with a False Positive result
- CCTA could subject 100 Low Risk Chest Pain patients to invasive catheterization to find 2-3 true positives
- Morgenstern (2020) EM:Rap 20(1): 11-2
VI. Preparation
-
Heart Rate control
- Goal Heart Rate <60 bpm
- Administer Beta Blocker if Heart Rate >65 bpm
- Metoprolol 50 to 100 mg orally at 45 to 60 minutes prior to scan
- Lopressor 5 mg IV dosed as needed immediately prior to imaging if Heart Rate still >65 bpm
- Other preparatory measures
- Nitroglycerin prior to imaging improves vessel definition
VII. Advantages
- Non-invasive, accurate Coronary Angiography
- May be performed as part of "Triple Screen" chest Pain Evaluation
- Assesses for Aortic Dissection, Pulmonary Embolism and coronary disease
- However, requires increased radiation and contrast load compared with CT angiography alone
-
Chest Pain risk stratification with a negative test allowing safe discharge from Emergency Department
- Most useful at ruling-out Acute Coronary Syndrome in Low Risk Chest Pain (see NPV below)
- Low Risk Chest Pain and a negative CCTA is associated with a <1% miss rate for significant CAD
- Litt (2012) N Engl J Med 366(15): 1393-403 [PubMed]
- Obviates the need for Stress Imaging within 72 hours and offers better reassurance if negative
- Normal CCTA in Low Risk Chest Pain is definitive
- Normal studies need no further evaluation for CAD with <0.1% risk of adverse cardiac events in 2 years
- CCTA with 25-50% stenosis may benefit from further evaluation and cardiology follow-up
- Contrast with standard Stress Imaging which is not definitive
- Despite normal stress test results, may require re-hospitalization for recurrent symptoms
- Miller (2011) Soc Acad Emerg Med 18(5): 458-67 [PubMed]
- Normal CCTA in Low Risk Chest Pain is definitive
- May reduce overall costs of care
- Decreased emergency department length of stay
- Decreased hospitalization rates
- Decreased re-hospitalization rates (CCTA more definitive than stress testing in its Negative Predictive Value)
- Stable Chest Pain and intermediate Cardiac Risk patients had similar outcomes with CCTA compared with early PTCA at 3 years
- Considerably fewer patients in the CCTA group required revascularization procedures (but did require more functional testing)
- Maurovich (2022) N Engl J Med 386(17): 1591-602 [PubMed]
VIII. Disadvantages
- High radiation exposure
- See CT-associated Radiation Exposure
- CT Calcium Score (performed prior to each CCTA): 3 to 4 mSv
- CCTA-64 slice with Retrospective Gating of diastole: 16 mSv in men and 23 mSv in women
- CCTA-64 slice with Prospective Gating of diastole: 10 mSv in men and 14 mSv in women
- CCTA-64 slice with Dual Source of diastole: 2 to 4 mSv
- However, Stress Imaging (outside of Stress Echo) also exposes to radiation with lower NPV
- Stress Myocardial Perfusion Imaging radiation exposure: 7 mSv (dual isotope 21 mSv)
- IV Contrast Material exposure
- Requires Heart Rate be suppressed to 60 bpm or less
- Low sensitivity for small vessels
- Unlike standard angiography, CT is diagnostic only (no ability to stent)
- Positive results vary based on the reading clinician and the cut-off
- Arbitrary positive cutoff of 50% stenosis was used in the Litt Study
- ROMICAT II study had 76% accuracy with an equal number of False Positives and False Negatives
- May not add significant value to acute risk stratification beyond two negative serial Troponins
- Negative TIMI Risk Score and biomarkers reduces missed-MI risk without CTA to 0.1%
- Litt (2012) N Engl J Med 366(15): 1393-403 [PubMed]
- Increased longterm costs due to a 6-fold increase in later testing at 150% of the cost and no survival benefit
- Associated with greater intervention rate for PCI and CABG (due to False Positives) without decreased MI
- In a low risk population, CCTA has a high False Positive Rate
- Morris (2016) Acad Emerg Med 23(9): 1022-30 +PMID:27155236 [PubMed]
- No Functional Evaluation
- Test is done at rest (contrast with stress testing)
IX. Efficacy
- Coronary CT Angiography (CCTA) Image quality compared with Angiography
- Standard angiography (gold standard)
- Temporal resolution: 20 msec
- Reflects the time to acquire a high quality image (within diastole)
- Spatial resolution: 0.2 mm
- Smallest slice width to distinguish between small structures
- Temporal resolution: 20 msec
- Coronary CT Angiography (CCTA) 64-Slice
- Temporal resolution: 165 msec
- Spatial resolution: 0.4 mm
- Coronary CT Angiography (CCTA) dual-source
- Temporal resolution: 83 msec
- Spatial resolution: 0.4 mm
- Standard angiography (gold standard)
- Coronary CT Angiography (CCTA) accuracy in diagnosing >50% stenosis (64-slice CT)
- Most useful at ruling-out Acute Coronary Syndrome in Low Risk Chest Pain (see NPV below)
- Test Sensitivity: 93 to 95%
- Test Specificity: 85 to 90%
- Positive Predictive Value (PPV): 48-94%
- Negative Predictive Value (NPV): 99%
X. Resources
- Jacobs (2006) How to perform coronary CTA: A to Z, Appl Radiol Supp p. 10-17
XI. References
- Chang (2014) Crit Dec Emerg Med 28(11): 12-9
- Orman and Radecki (2012) EM:RAP 12(10): 1
- Hamm (1997) N Engl J Med 337(23): 1648-53 [PubMed]
- Hoffman (2005) JAMA 293:2471-8 [PubMed]
- Leber (2005) J Am Coll Cardiol 46:147-54 [PubMed]