The Diagnostic Accuracy of Сoronary Сomputed Tomography Angiography in the Diagnosis of Stable Coronary Artery Disease in Patients Aged 70 Years and Older

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of сoronary сomputed tomography angiography (CCTA) in the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients aged ≥70 years. Materials and methods: The study included 390 patients aged ≥70 years with symptoms suggested stable CAD which underwent elective coronary artery angiography (CAG). Initially the prevalence of angiographically significant CAD was estimated according to the gender and chest pain character, and identifications of patients in whom CCTA was appropriate. After that diagnostic accuracy and сost-efficiency of CCTA in the diagnosis of stable CAD in 82 patients with atypical angina and non-anginal chest pain were evaluated. Results: The prevalence of obstructive CAD in patients with typical angina was very high and they were excluded from the final analysis. Among 82 patients with atypical angina and non-anginal pain which underwent CCTA 48 (59%) patients had obstructive CAD. CСTA data matched with results of CAG in all cases. Among 34 patients that had non-obstructive CAD the results of CCTA and CAG matched in 88% cases. CCTA has sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value of 100%, 88%, 92% and 100% respectively. The likelihood ratio for positive result was 8.3, likelihood ratio for negative result was 0.3. Positive result increased post-test probability of obstructive CAD from 42% to 86%, negative result reduced post-test probability of obstructive CAD to 0%. Conclusion: negative CCTA result in patients aged 70 years and older with atypical angina and non-anginal pain allows to exclude the presence of obstructive CAD.  The likelihood ratio for positive result indicates a moderately difference between the pre-test and post-test probability of the presence of obstructive CAD. In patients aged ≥70 years with atypical angina or non-anginal chest pain which have inconclusive results of functional testing or unable undergo functional testing CCTA allows to increase diagnostic yield of CAG and reduce the frequency of minor complications and diagnostic evaluation costs.

1. El Manaa H.E., Shchekochikhin D.Yu., Shabanova M.S., Gognieva D.G., Lomonosova A.A., Gogiberidze N.A. et al. Coronary computed tomographic angiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in outpatient settings. Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology. 2018;8(2):40–8. DOI: 10.21569/2222-7415-2018-8-2-40–48

2. Weustink AC. Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Utility of Noninvasive Testing for Coronary Artery Disease. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2010;152(10):630–9. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-10-201005180-00003

3. Nielsen LH, Ortner N, Norgaard BL, Achenbach S, Leipsic J, Abdulla J. The diagnostic accuracy and outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography vs. conventional functional testing in patients with stable angina pectoris: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging. 2014;15(9):961–71. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jeu027

4. Yin X, Wang J, Zheng W, Ma J, Hao P, Chen Y. Diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography versus exercise electrocardiography for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2016;8(7):1688–96. DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2016.06.06

5. 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.

6. Montalescot G, Sechtem W, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, Budaj A et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. European Heart Journal. 2013;34(38):2949–3003. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht296

7. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Dallas AP et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2012;60(24):e44–164. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.013

8. Timmis A, Roobottom CA. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence updates the stable chest pain guideline with radical changes to the diagnostic paradigm. Heart. 2017;103(13):982–6. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308341

9. Varga A, Garcia MAR, Picano E. Safety of Stress Echocardiography (from the International Stress Echo Complication Registry). The American Journal of Cardiology. 2006;98(4):541–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.02.064

10. Diamond GA. A clinically relevant classification of chest discomfort. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1983;1(2):574–5. DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(83)80093-X

11. Campeau L. Letter: Grading of angina pectoris. Circulation. 1976;54(3):522–3. PMID: 947585

12. Rosenthal RL. The 50% Coronary Stenosis. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2015;115(8):1162–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.01.553

13. Austen W, Edwards J, Frye R, Gensini G, Gott V, Griffith L et al. A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association. Circulation. 1975;51(4 Suppl):5–40. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.51.4.5

14. Jaeschke R. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;271(9):703–7. DOI: 10.1001/jama.271.9.703

15. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2006;6(1):9. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-9

16. Reeh J, Therming CB, Heitmann M, Højberg S, Sørum C, Bech J et al. Prediction of obstructive coronary artery disease and prognosis in patients with suspected stable angina. European Heart Journal. 2019;40(18):1426–35. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy806

17. Foldyna B, Udelson JE, Karády J, Banerji D, Lu MT, Mayrhofer T et al. Pretest probability for patients with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease: re-evaluating Diamond–Forrester for the contemporary era and clinical implications: insights from the PROMISE trial. European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging. 2019;20(5):574–81. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jey182

18. 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

19. van Werkhoven JM, Heijenbrok MW, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, Boogers MM, van der Wall EE et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of 64-Slice Multislice Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography in Patients With an Intermediate Pretest Likelihood for Coronary Artery Disease. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2010;105(3):302–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.09.029

20. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, Gitter M, Sutherland J, Halamert E et al. Diagnostic Performance of 64-Multidetector Row Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis in Individuals Without Known Coronary Artery Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008;52(21):1724–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.031

21. Paech DC, Weston AR. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of suspected coronary artery disease. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2011;11(1):32. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2261-11-32

22. Dharampal AS, Papadopoulou SL, Rossi A, Weustink AC, Mollet NRA, Meijboom WB et al. Computed tomography coronary angiography accuracy in women and men at low to intermediate risk of coronary artery disease. European Radiology. 2012;22(11):2415–23. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2503-5

23. Dewey M, Rief M, Martus P, Kendziora B, Feger S, Dreger H et al. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with atypical angina or chest pain clinically referred for invasive coronary angiography: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2016;355:i6420. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i6420

24. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV et al. Low Diagnostic Yield of Elective Coronary Angiography. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;362(10):886–95. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907272

25. Douglas PS, Patel MR, Bailey SR, Dai D, Kaltenbach L, Brindis RG et al. Hospital Variability in the Rate of Finding Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease at Elective, Diagnostic Coronary Angiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011;58(8):801–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.05.019