Comparison of guidelines for diagnosing suspected stable angina and the additional value of the calcium score

Coronary calcifications as assessed on routine non-gated chest CT; a gatekeeper to tailor downstream additional imaging in patients with stable chest pain

Background and aims

Currently applied methods for risk-assessment in coronary artery disease (CAD) often overestimate patients' risk for obstructive CAD. To enhance risk estimation, assessment of coronary artery calcium (CAC) can be applied. In 10 % of patients presenting with stable chest pain a previous non-gated computed tomography (CT) has been performed, suitable for CAC-assessment. This study is the first to investigate the clinical utility of CAC-assessment on non-gated CT for risk-assessment of obstructive CAD in symptomatic patients.

Methods

For this analysis, all patients referred for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), in whom a previous non-gated chest CT was performed were included. The extent of CAC was assessed on chest CT and ordinally scored. CAD was assessed on CCTA and obstructive CAD defined as stenosis of ≥70 %. Patients were stratified according to CAC-severity and percentages of patients with obstructive CAD were compared between the CAC groups.

Results

In total, 170 patients of 32-88 years were included and 35 % were male. The percentage of obstructive CAD between the CAC groups differed significantly (p < 0.01). A calcium score of 0 ruled out obstructive CAD irrespective of sex, pre-test probability, type of complaints and number of risk factors with a 100 % certainty. Furthermore, a mild CAC score ruled out obstructive CAD in patients with low - intermediate PTP or non-anginal complaints with 100 % certainty.

Conclusion

When available, CAC on non-gated chest CT can accurately rule out obstructive CAD and can therefore function as a radiation-free and cost-free gatekeeper for additional imaging in patients presenting with stable chest pain.

The Clear Value of Coronary Artery Calcification Evaluation on Non-Gated Chest Computed Tomography for Cardiac Risk Stratification

To enhance risk stratification in patients suspected of coronary artery disease, the assessment of coronary artery calcium (CAC) could be incorporated, especially when CAC can be readily assessed on previously performed non-gated chest computed tomography (CT). Guidelines recommend reporting on patients' extent of CAC on these non-cardiac directed exams and various studies have shown the diagnostic and prognostic value. However, this method is still little applied, and no current consensus exists in clinical practice. This review aims to point out the clinical utility of different kinds of CAC assessment on non-gated CTs. It demonstrates that these scans indeed represent a merely untapped and underestimated resource for risk stratification in patients with stable chest pain or an increased risk of cardiovascular events. To our knowledge, this is the first review to describe the clinical utility of different kinds of visual CAC evaluation on non-gated unenhanced chest CT. Various methods of CAC assessment on non-gated CT are discussed and compared in terms of diagnostic and prognostic value. Furthermore, the application of these non-gated CT scans in the general practice of cardiology is discussed. The clinical utility of coronary calcium assessed on non-gated chest CT, according to the current literature, is evident. This resource of information for cardiac risk stratification needs no specific requirements for scan protocol, and is radiation-free and cost-free. However, some gaps in research remain. In conclusion, the integration of CAC on non-gated chest CT in general cardiology should be promoted and research on this method should be encouraged.

Coronary artery calcium score and pre-test probabilities as gatekeepers to predict and rule out perfusion defects in positron emission tomography

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the gatekeeper performance of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) before myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography (PET), compared with updated pre-test probabilities from American and European guidelines (pre-test-AHA/ACC, pre-test-ESC).

METHODS

We enrolled participants without known coronary artery disease undergoing CACS and Rubidium-82 PET. Abnormal perfusion was defined as summed stress score ≥ 4. Using Bayes' formula, pre-test probabilities and CACS were combined into post-test probabilities.

RESULTS

We included 2050 participants (54% male, mean age 64.6 years) with median CACS 62 (IQR 0-380), pre-test-ESC 17% (11-26), pre-test-AHA/ACC 27% (16-44), and abnormal perfusion in 437 participants (21%). To predict abnormal perfusion, area under the curve of CACS was 0.81, pre-test-AHA/ACC 0.68, pre-test-ESC 0.69, post-test-AHA/ACC 0.80, and post-test-ESC 0.81 (P < 0.001 for CACS vs. each pre-test, and each post-test vs. pre-test). CACS = 0 had 97% negative predictive value (NPV), pre-test-AHA/ACC ≤ 5% 100%, pre-test-ESC ≤ 5% 98%, post-test-AHA/ACC ≤ 5% 98%, and post-test-ESC ≤ 5% 96%. Among participants, 26% had CACS = 0, 2% pre-test-AHA/ACC ≤ 5%, 7% pre-test-ESC ≤ 5%, 23% post-test-AHA/ACC ≤ 5%, and 33% post-test-ESC ≤ 5% (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CACS and post-test probabilities are excellent predictors of abnormal perfusion and can rule it out with very high NPV in a substantial proportion of participants. CACS and post-test probabilities may be used as gatekeepers before advanced imaging. Coronary artery calcium score (CACS) predicted abnormal perfusion (SSS ≥ 4) in myocardial positron emission tomography (PET) better than pre-test probabilities of coronary artery disease (CAD), while pre-test-AHA/ACC and pre-test-ESC performed similarly (left). Using Bayes' formula, pre-test-AHA/ACC or pre-test-ESC were combined with CACS into post-test probabilities (middle). This calculation reclassified a substantial proportion of participants to low probability of CAD (0-5%), not needing further imaging, as shown for AHA/ACC probabilities (2% with pre-test-AHA/ACC to 23% with post-test-AHA/ACC, P < 0.001, right). Very few participants with abnormal perfusion were classified under pre-test or post-test probabilities 0-5%, or under CACS 0. AUC: area under the curve. Pre-test-AHA/ACC: Pre-test probability of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology. Post-test-AHA/ACC: Post-test probability combining pre-test-AHA/ACC and CACS. Pre-test-ESC: Pre-test probability of the European Society of Cardiology. SSS: Summed stress score.

Evaluation of Clinical Applicability of Coronary Artery Calcium Assessment on Non-Gated Chest Computed Tomography, Compared With the Classic Agatston Score on Cardiac Computed Tomography

Given current pretest probability (PTP) estimations tend to overestimate patients' risk for obstructive coronary artery disease, evaluation of patients' coronary artery calcium (CAC) is more precise. The value of CAC assessment with the Agatston score on cardiac computed tomography (CT) for risk estimation has been well indicated in patients with stable chest pain. CAC can be equally well assessed on routine non-gated chest CT, which is often available. This study aims to determine the clinical applicability of CAC assessment on non-gated CT in patients with stable chest pain compared with the classic Agatston score on gated CT. Consecutive patients referred for evaluation of the Agatston score, who had a previously performed non-gated chest CT for evaluation of noncardiac diseases, were included. CAC on non-gated CT was ordinally scored. Subsequently, patients were stratified according to CAC severity and PTP. The agreement and correlation between the classic Agatston score and CAC on non-gated CT were evaluated. The discriminative power for risk reclassification of both CAC assessment methods was assessed. Invasive coronary angiography was used as the gold standard, when available. A total of 140 patients aged between 30 and 88 years were included. The agreement between ordinally scored CAC and the Agatston score was excellent (κ = 0.82) and the correlation strong (r = 0.94). Most patients (80%) with an intermediate PTP had no or mild CAC on non-gated CT. They were reclassified at low risk with 100% accuracy compared with invasive coronary angiography. Similarly, 86% of patients had an Agatston score <300. These patients were reclassified with 98% accuracy. In patients with high PTP, the accuracy remained substantial and comparable, 94% and 89%, respectively. In conclusion, we believe this is the first study to assess the clinical applicability of CAC on non-gated CT in patients with stable chest pain, compared with the classic Agatston score. The agreement between methods was excellent and the correlation strong. Furthermore, CAC assessment on non-gated CT could reclassify patients' risk for obstructive coronary artery disease as accurately as could the classic Agatston score.