4.5 Review

Comparison of multislice computed tomography with intravascular ultrasound for detection and characterization of coronary artery plaques: A systematic review

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 71, Issue 2, Pages 275-282

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.04.035

Keywords

Coronary artery disease; Coronary atherosclerosis; Computed tomography; Intravascular ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) is a novel non-invasive test for detection and analysis of coronary artery plaques. A systematic review was conducted of the literature to compare MSCT with IVUS as the reference standard for assessing coronary artery plaques. Materials and methods: We performed a literature search in the online database MEDLINE, which was accessed at http://www.pubmed.gov on 9th April 2008. Results: The search identified 14 studies with 340 patients (mean age 59 5 years). The systematic review revealed a sensitivity of MSCT on the lesion level (n = 1779 coronary plaques) on the order of 90% (range from 87 to 92%) in comparison to IVUS. Per-segment analysis (n = 356) yielded a lower sensitivity of 81-86%. In the per-vessel analysis (n = 90), MSCT had a better sensitivity and specificity for the RCA (83-89% and 92-100%) and the LAD (83-87% and 93%) than for the LCX (71-85% and 77-89%), and on the vessel level and the cross-section analysis MSCT was more sensitive for calcified plaques than for non-calcified plaque. It is noteworthy that most studies provide only incomplete data on technical and methodological parameters such as radiation exposure and patient characteristics. Conclusion: MSCT is an accurate and reliable test for detection of coronary artery plaques in comparison to IVUS with limitations in regards to the LCX and non-calcified plaques. Studies published thus far are limited by the sample sizes and methodological quality issues. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available