Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography - A comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound

OBJECTIVES The aim of the present study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography (CT) to identify and quantify atherosclerotic coronary lesions in comparison with catheter-based angiography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). BACKGROUND Currently, the ability of multislice CT to quantify the degree of coronary artery stenosis and dimensions of coronary plaques has not been evaluated. METHODS We included 59 patients scheduled for coronary angiography due to stable angina pectoris. A contrast-enhanced 64-slice CT (Senation 64, Siemens Medical Solutions, Forchheim, Germany) was performed before the invasive angiogram. In a subset of 18 patients, IVUS of 32 vessels was part of the catheterization procedure. RESULTS In 55 of 59 patients, 64-slice CT enabled the visualization of the entire coronary tree with diagnostic image quality (American Heart Association 15-segment model). The overall correlation between the degree of stenosis detected by quantitative coronary angiography compared with 64-slice CT was r = 0.54. Sensitivity for the detection of stenosis < 50%, stenosis > 50%, and stenosis > 75% was 79%, 73%, and 80%, respectively, and specificity was 97%. In comparison with IVUS, 46 of 55 (84%) lesions were identified correctly. The mean plaque areas and the percentage of vessel obstruction measured by IVUS and 64-slice CT were 8.1 mm(2) versus 7.3 mm(2) (p < 0.03, r = 0.73) and 50.4% versus 41.1% (p < 0.001, r = 0.61), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Contrast-enhanced 64-slice CT is a clinically robust modality that allows the identification of proximal coronary lesions with excellent accuracy. Measurements of plaque and lumen areas derived by CT correlated well with IVUS. A major limitation is the insufficient ability of CT to exactly quantify the degree of stenosis. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:147-54) (c) 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.