Detection of relevant extracardiac findings on coronary computed tomography angiography vs. invasive coronary angiography

Objectives To compare the detection of relevant extracardiac findings (ECFs) on coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and evaluate the potential clinical benefit of their detection. Methods This is the prespecified subanalysis of ECFs in patients presenting with a clinical indication for ICA based on atypical angina and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) included in the prospective single-center randomized controlled Coronary Artery Disease Management (CAD-Man) study. ECFs requiring immediate therapy and/or further workup including additional imaging were defined as clinically relevant. We evaluated the scope of ECFs in 329 patients and analyzed the potential clinical benefit of their detection. Results ECFs were detected in 107 of 329 patients (32.5%; CTA: 101/167, 60.5%; ICA: 6/162, 3.7%; p < .001). Fifty-nine patients had clinically relevant ECFs (17.9%; CTA: 55/167, 32.9%; ICA: 4/162, 2.5%; p < .001). In the CTA group, ECFs potentially explained atypical chest pain in 13 of 101 patients with ECFs (12.9%). After initiation of therapy, chest pain improved in 4 (4.0%) and resolved in 7 patients (6.9%). Follow-up imaging was recommended in 33 (10.0%; CTA: 30/167, 18.0%; ICA: 3/162, 1.9%) and additional clinic consultation in 26 patients (7.9%; CTA: 25/167, 15.0%; ICA: 1/162, 0.6%). Malignancy was newly diagnosed in one patient (0.3%; CTA: 1/167, 0.6%; ICA: 0). Conclusions In this randomized study, CTA but not ICA detected clinically relevant ECFs that may point to possible other causes of chest pain in patients without CAD. Thus, CTA might preclude the need for ICA in those patients.

Automated summary

In this study, CTA detected clinically relevant ECFs that may explain chest pain in patients without CAD, whereas ICA did not. This suggests that CTA may eliminate the need for ICA in certain patients.