Results of Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography in Comparison with the Table of Pretest Probability of Chronic Coronary Syndrome

Aim        To compare results of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) with a table of pretest probability of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) taking into account the following key variants: abnormality, microvascular damage, nonobstructive or obstructive atherosclerotic damage.

Material and methods        50 patients (39 men, 20 women) aged 30 to 67 years were evaluated with a computed tomography scanner PHILIPS Brilliance iCT SP 128. A high pretest probability of ischemic heart disease was found in 44 % of cases and medium in 40%.

Results   According to CCS data, coronary artery (CA) pathology was not found in 28 % of patients. CA hypoplasia was observed in 4 % of patients. 22 % of patients had muscular bridges narrowing the CA lumen during systole by 40-50%. In 26 % of cases, CA had minimal and early stenoses. Moderate and pronounced stenoses were observed in 20% of cases. In one case, there was a total occlusion of the circumflex branch. Calcinates were found in 9.1 % of patients with muscular bridges, in 61.5 % of patients with minimal and early stenoses, and in 80% of patients with moderate and pronounced stenoses. In the group with “clean” CA and congenital defects, calcinates were absent. The mean value of pretest probability was the highest in the patient group with moderate and pronounced stenoses, 22.5±13.13. It was significantly higher than in the group with muscular bridges (р=0.045) and congenital pathology of CA (р=0.01). At the same time, this value did not significantly differ from the group with “clean” CA and the group with minimal and early stenoses. Based on the study results, 2 bypass surgeries and 5 CA stentings were performed.

Conclusion            Thus, the table of pretest probability of ischemic heart disease does not provide a differential diagnosis and evaluation of the nature of CA damage as compared to results of CTCA.

1. Zaghloul SM, Hassan W, M Reda A, M Sultan G, A Salah M, O Balubid H et al. CT Coronary Angiography versus Coronary Angiography to Detect Specificity and Sensitivity of CT Coronary. Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine. 2019;3(1):1–6. DOI: 10.33805/2639.6807.116

2. Ternovoy S.K., Nikonova M.E., Akchurin R.S., Fedotenkov I.S., Shiryaev A.A. Possibilities of multislice computed tomography in the assessment of the coronary bed and ventriculography in comparison with interventional coronary ventriculography. Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology. 2013;3(1):28–36.

3. Kohsaka S, Makaryus A. Coronary Angiography Using Noninvasive Imaging Techniques of Cardiac CT and MRI. Current Cardiology Reviews. 2008;4(4):323–30. DOI: 10.2174/157340308786349444

4. Tavakol M, Ashraf S, Brener SJ. Risks and Complications of Coronary Angiography: A Comprehensive Review. Global Journal of Health Science. 2011;4(1):65–93. DOI: 10.5539/gjhs.v4n1p65

5. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JMcB, Mark D, Min J, O’Gara P et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010

6. Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2010;56(22):1864–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.07.005

7. Sinitsyn V.E., Ternovoy S.K., Ustyujanin D.V., Veselova T.N., Matchin Yu.G. Diagnostic Value of CT Angiography in Coronary Arteries Stenoses Detection. Kardiologiia. 2008;48(1):9–14.

8. Collet C, Onuma Y, Andreini D, Sonck J, Pompilio G, Mushtaq S et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography for heart team decision-making in multivessel coronary artery disease. European Heart Journal. 2018;39(41):3689–98. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy581

9. Joshi H, Shah R, Prajapati J, Bhangdiya V, Shah J, Kandre Y et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography angiography as compared to conventional angiography in patients undergoing noncoronary cardiac surgery. Heart Views. 2016;17(3):88–91. DOI: 10.4103/1995-705X.192555

10. Ternovoy S.K., Shabanova M.S., Gaman S.A., Merkulova I.N., Shariya M.A. Role of computed tomography in the detection of unstable atherosclerotic plaques of the coronary arteries: comparison of the results of computed tomography and intravascular ultrasound. Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology. 2016;6(3):68–79. DOI: 10.21569/2222-7415-2016-6-3-68-79

11. Ternovoy S.K., Veselova T.N. Detection of unstable plaques in coronary arteries using multislice computed tomography. Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology. 2014;4(1):7–14.

12. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, Guyton RA et al. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014;63(22):e57–185. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.536

13. Ternovoy S.K., Veselova T.N., Shabanova M.S., Chepovskiy A.M. Evaluation of transluminal attenuation gradient in computed tomography in intact coronary arteries. Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology. 2019;9(3):58–64. DOI: 10.21569/2222-7415-2019-9-3-58-64

14. Sims JR, Anavekar NS, Chandrasekaran K, Steckelberg JM, Wilson WR, Gersh BJ et al. Utility of cardiac computed tomography scanning in the diagnosis and pre-operative evaluation of patients with infective endocarditis. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 2018;34(7):1155–63. DOI: 10.1007/s10554-018-1318-0

15. Chan M, Ridley L, Dunn DJ, Tian DH, Liou K, Ozdirik J et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts. International Journal of Cardiology. 2016;221:898–905. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.264

16. Sharma R, Voelker DJ, Sharma RK, Singh VN, Bhatt G, Moazazi M et al. Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in community hospitals: current and emerging role. Vascular Health and Risk Management. 2010;6:307–16. DOI: 10.2147/VHRM.S9108

17. Meijboom WB, van Mieghem CAG, Mollet NR, Pugliese F, Weustink AC, van Pelt N et al. 64-Slice Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography in Patients With High, Intermediate, or Low Pretest Probability of Significant Coronary Artery Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2007;50(15):1469–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.007

18. Cury RC, Abbara S, Achenbach S, Agatston A, Berman DS, Budoff MJ et al. CAD-RADSTM Coronary Artery Disease – Reporting and Data System. An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI). Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. 2016;10(4):269–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2016.04.005

19. Sumin A.N. The assessment of pretest probability in obstructive coronary lesion diagnostics: unresolved issues. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2017;22(11):68–76. DOI: 10.15829/1560-4071-2017-11-68-76

20. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Barbato E, FunckBrentano C et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal. 2020;41(3):407–77. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425

21. Nakaura T, Nagayoshi Y, Awai K, Utsunomiya D, Kawano H, Ogawa H et al. Myocardial bridging is associated with coronary atherosclerosis in the segment proximal to the site of bridging. Journal of Cardiology. 2014;63(2):134–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2013.07.005

22. Ma E, Ma G, Yu H, Wu W, Li K. Assessment of Myocardial Bridge and Mural Coronary Artery Using ECG-Gated 256-Slice CT Angiography: A Retrospective Study. The Scientific World Journal. 2013;2013:947876. DOI: 10.1155/2013/947876

23. Donkol RH. Myocardial bridging analysis by coronary computed tomographic angiography in a Saudi population. World Journal of Cardiology. 2013;5(11):434–41. DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v5.i11.434

24. Gormeli C, Yagmur J, Özdemir R, Maras Ozdemir Z, sagir kahraman A, Çolak C. Comparison of myocardial bridging prevalence using 64-slice versus 256-slice computed tomography scanners: What has changed with recent innovations in CT? Biomedical Research. 2016;27(3):954–8. [Av. at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209959_Comparison_of_myocardial_bridging_prevalence_using_64-slice_versus_256-slice_computed_tomography_scanners_What_has_changed_with_recent_innovations_in_CT]

25. Badar U, Ahad G, Tariq A, Muhammad IF, Masood A. Frequency of myocardial bridging in patients with coronary artery disease. Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases & Diagnosis. 2018;14(3):73–6. [Av. at: http://www.jcvdpic.org/PDF/Volume14Issue3/4.pdf]

26. Huang F, Ye JG, Su LB, Guo YY, Liu WX, Cai C. Application of 64-slice spiral computed tomography angiography in a follow-up evaluation after coronary stent implantation: A Chinese clinical study. International Journal of Radiation Research. 2019;17(3):479–84. [Av. at: ijrr.com/article-1-2609-en.pdf]. DOI: 10.18869/acadpub.ijrr.17.3.479