-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
CT koronární angiografie - jsme už tak daleko?
[Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT]
J. M. Miller, et al.
Jazyk čeština Země Česko
- MeSH
- angina pectoris klasifikace radiografie MeSH
- hodnocení biomedicínských technologií MeSH
- jednoduchá slepá metoda MeSH
- koronární angiografie škodlivé účinky MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nemoci koronárních tepen radiografie MeSH
- plocha pod křivkou MeSH
- počítačová rentgenová tomografie metody škodlivé účinky MeSH
- prediktivní hodnota testů MeSH
- ROC křivka MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- senzitivita a specificita MeSH
- stupeň závažnosti nemoci MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
The accuracy of multidetector computed tomographic (CT) angiography involving 64 detectors has not been well established. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study to examine the accuracy of 64-row, 0.5-mm multidetector CT angiography as compared with conventional coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Nine centers enrolled patients who underwent calcium scoring and multidetector CT angiography before conventional coronary angiography. In 291 patients with calcium scores of 600 or less, segments 1.5 mm or more in diameter were analyzed by means of CT and conventional angiography at independent core laboratories. Stenoses of 50% or more were considered obstructive. The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy relative to that of conventional angiography and subsequent revascularization status, whereas disease severity was assessed with the use of the modified Duke Coronary Artery Disease Index. RESULTS: A total of 56% of patients had obstructive coronary artery disease. The patient-based diagnostic accuracy of quantitative CT angiography for detecting or ruling out stenoses of 50% or more according to conventional angiography revealed an AUC of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.96), with a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI, 79 to 90), a specificity of 90% (95% CI, 83 to 94), a positive predictive value of 91% (95% CI, 86 to 95), and a negative predictive value of 83% (95% CI, 75 to 89). CT angiography was similar to conventional angiography in its ability to identify patients who subsequently underwent revascularization: the AUC was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88) for multidetector CT angiography and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.86) for conventional angiography. A per-vessel analysis of 866 vessels yielded an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.93). Disease severity ascertained by CT and conventional angiography was well correlated (r=0.81; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.84). Two patients had important reactions to contrast medium after CT angiography. CONCLUSIONS: Multidetector CT angiography accurately identifies the presence and severity of obstructive coronary artery disease and subsequent revascularization in symptomatic patients. The negative and positive predictive values indicate that multidetector CT angiography cannot replace conventional coronary angiography at present. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00738218.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT
- 000
- 00000naa 2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc07526116
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20111210142910.0
- 008
- 090709s2009 xr e cze||
- 009
- AR
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a cze $b eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Miller, J. M.
- 245 10
- $a CT koronární angiografie - jsme už tak daleko? / $c J. M. Miller, et al.
- 246 11
- $a Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT
- 314 __
- $a Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore
- 520 9_
- $a The accuracy of multidetector computed tomographic (CT) angiography involving 64 detectors has not been well established. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study to examine the accuracy of 64-row, 0.5-mm multidetector CT angiography as compared with conventional coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Nine centers enrolled patients who underwent calcium scoring and multidetector CT angiography before conventional coronary angiography. In 291 patients with calcium scores of 600 or less, segments 1.5 mm or more in diameter were analyzed by means of CT and conventional angiography at independent core laboratories. Stenoses of 50% or more were considered obstructive. The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy relative to that of conventional angiography and subsequent revascularization status, whereas disease severity was assessed with the use of the modified Duke Coronary Artery Disease Index. RESULTS: A total of 56% of patients had obstructive coronary artery disease. The patient-based diagnostic accuracy of quantitative CT angiography for detecting or ruling out stenoses of 50% or more according to conventional angiography revealed an AUC of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.96), with a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI, 79 to 90), a specificity of 90% (95% CI, 83 to 94), a positive predictive value of 91% (95% CI, 86 to 95), and a negative predictive value of 83% (95% CI, 75 to 89). CT angiography was similar to conventional angiography in its ability to identify patients who subsequently underwent revascularization: the AUC was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88) for multidetector CT angiography and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.86) for conventional angiography. A per-vessel analysis of 866 vessels yielded an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.93). Disease severity ascertained by CT and conventional angiography was well correlated (r=0.81; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.84). Two patients had important reactions to contrast medium after CT angiography. CONCLUSIONS: Multidetector CT angiography accurately identifies the presence and severity of obstructive coronary artery disease and subsequent revascularization in symptomatic patients. The negative and positive predictive values indicate that multidetector CT angiography cannot replace conventional coronary angiography at present. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00738218.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a angina pectoris $x klasifikace $x radiografie $7 D000787
- 650 _2
- $a plocha pod křivkou $7 D019540
- 650 _2
- $a koronární angiografie $x škodlivé účinky $7 D017023
- 650 _2
- $a nemoci koronárních tepen $x radiografie $7 D003324
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
- 650 _2
- $a ROC křivka $7 D012372
- 650 _2
- $a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
- 650 _2
- $a stupeň závažnosti nemoci $7 D012720
- 650 _2
- $a jednoduchá slepá metoda $7 D016037
- 650 _2
- $a hodnocení biomedicínských technologií $7 D013673
- 650 _2
- $a počítačová rentgenová tomografie $x metody $x škodlivé účinky $7 D014057
- 773 0_
- $w MED00012706 $t Clinical cardiology alert $g Roč. 3, č. 1 (2009), s. 3-4 $x 1213-2586
- 787 18
- $w bmc07526117 $i Recenze v: $t Komentář [k článku CT koronární angiografie - jsme už tak daleko?]
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b B 2242 $c 407 a $y 9
- 990 __
- $a 20090709104339 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20090907120405 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 668414 $s 525669
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BMC __
- $a 2009 $b 3 $c 1 $d 3-4 $i 1213-2586 $m Clinical Cardiology Alert $x MED00012706
- LZP __
- $a 2009-22/mkme