4.7 Article

The Present State of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography A Process in Evolution

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 55, Issue 10, Pages 957-965

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.08.087

Keywords

cardiac computed tomography angiography; coronary artery disease; diagnosis

Funding

  1. GE Healthcare and Vital Images
  2. GE Healthcare

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the past 5 years since the introduction of 64-detector row cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA), there has been an exponential growth in the quantity of scientific evidence to support the feasibility of its use in the clinical evaluation of individuals with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Since then, there has been considerable debate as to where CCTA precisely fits in the algorithm of evaluation of individuals with suspected CAD. Proponents of CCTA contend that the quality and scope of the available evidence to date support the replacement of conventional methods of CAD evaluation by CCTA, whereas critics assert that clinical use of CCTA is not yet adequately proven and should be restricted, if used at all. Coincident with the scientific debate underlying the clinical utility of CCTA, there has developed a perception by many that the rate of growth in cardiac imaging is disproportionately high and unsustainable. In this respect, all noninvasive imaging modalities and, in particular, more newly introduced ones, have undergone a higher level of scrutiny for demonstration of clinical and economic effectiveness. We herein describe the latest available published evidence supporting the potential clinical and cost efficiency of CCTA, drawing attention not only to the significance but also the limitations of such studies. These points may trigger discussion as to what future studies will be both necessary and feasible for determining the exact role of CCTA in the workup of patients with suspected CAD. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 957-65) (C) 2010 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available