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 (68)  • 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

Diagnostic Performance of 64-Multidetector Row Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis in Individuals Without Known Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the Prospective Multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) Trial
Budoff et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:1724-1732.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Identifying patterns of atherosclerotic disease manifestation with coronary computed tomography. Impact on clinical management and outcome?
Schoenhagen and Tuzcu
Eur Heart J 2008;29:2323-2324.
FULL TEXT  

Optimal Electrocardiographic Pulsing Windows and Heart Rate: Effect on Image Quality and Radiation Exposure at Dual-Source Coronary CT Angiography
Weustink et al.
Radiology 2008;248:792-798.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Combining dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography and calcium scoring: added value for the assessment of coronary artery disease
Leschka et al.
Heart 2008;94:1154-1161.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Angiography in Angina: Reliability and Validity
Hemingway et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2008;149:221-231.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Functionally Relevant Coronary Artery Disease: Comparison of 64-Section CT Angiography with Myocardial Perfusion SPECT
Gaemperli et al.
Radiology 2008;248:414-423.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Noninvasive Coronary Artery Imaging: Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Multidetector Computed Tomography Angiography: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young
Bluemke et al.
Circulation 2008;118:586-606.
FULL TEXT  

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

Effect of Decrease in Heart Rate Variability on the Diagnostic Accuracy of 64-MDCT Coronary Angiography
Leschka et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;190:1583-1590.
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