4.7 Article

Feasibility of Non-Invasive Coronary Artery Disease Screening with Coronary CT Angiography before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12062285

关键词

computed tomography angiography; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; percutaneous coronary intervention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computed coronary tomography angiography (CCTA) is an efficient alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for coronary artery disease (CAD) screening before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients without known CAD.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) screening is usually performed before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) by invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Computed coronary tomography angiography (CCTA) has shown good diagnostic performance for CAD screening in patients with a low probability of CAD and is systematically performed before TAVI. CCTA could be an efficient alternative to ICA for CAD screening before TAVI. We sought to investigate the diagnostic performance of CCTA in a population of unselected patients without known CAD who were candidates for TAVI. All consecutive patients referred to our center for TAVI without known CAD were enrolled. All patients underwent CCTA and ICA, which were considered the gold standard. A statistical analysis of the diagnostic performance per patient and per artery was performed. 307 consecutive patients were enrolled. CCTA was non-analyzable in 25 patients (8.9%). In the per-patient analysis, CCTA had a sensitivity of 89.6%, a specificity of 90.2%, a positive predictive value of 65.15%, and a negative predictive value of 97.7%. Only five patients were classified as false negatives on the CCTA. Despite some limitations of the study, CCTA seems reliable for CAD screening in patients without known CAD who are candidates for TAVI. By using CCTA, ICA could be avoided in patients with a CAD-RADS score <= 2, which represents 74.8% of patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据