4.8 Article

Prevalence of significant noncardiac findings on electron-beam computed tomography coronary artery calcium screening examinations

Journal

CIRCULATION
Volume 106, Issue 5, Pages 532-534

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000027136.56615.DE

Keywords

calcium; radiography; computed tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-Screening electron-beam computed tomography (EBCT) examinations for the detection and quantification of coronary artery calcification are being performed throughout the country. In addition to information about the heart, great vessels, and coronary arteries, these examinations include portions of the lungs, bony thorax, and upper abdomen. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of significant noncardiac findings in it series of patients undergoing coronary artery calcification screening studies with EBCT scanning. Methods and Results-Between January 1, 2001. and October 1, 2001, 1326 consecutive patients underwent coronary artery calcification screening with EBCT (3-mm-thick slices were obtained at 3-min intervals). Two board-certified radiologists reviewed the examinations on a workstation using standard mediastinal windows. lung windows, and bone windows. Significant extracardiac abnormalities were noted. Of 1326 patients, 103 (7.8%) had significant extracardiac pathology requiring clinical or imaging follow-up. These included 53 patients with noncalcified lung nodules <1 cm, 12 patients with lung nodules greater than or equal to1 cm, 24 patients with infiltrates, 7 patients with indeterminate liver lesions, 2 patients with sclerotic bone lesions, 2 patients with breast abnormalities, 1 patient with polycystic liver disease, I patient with esophageal thickening, and 1 patient with ascites. Conclusions-In this study, 7.8% of patients undergoing screening EBCT examinations for coronary artery calcification were found to have important extracardiac pathology requiring additional work-up. Therefore. it is essential that a radiologist review the entire examination.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available