4.3 Article

Non-cardiac findings on coronary electron beam computed tomography scanning

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC IMAGING
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 82-86

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005382-200404000-00004

关键词

incidental findings; electron beam tomography; coronary calcium; National Death Index

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [5-R25-CA57703] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence and significance of non-cardiac findings on Electron Beam Computed Tomography (EBT) scanning when used in population screening for the quantitative measurement of coronary artery calcium and estimate of coronary risk. Clinic files of 1366 subjects who underwent EBT scanning between September 1996 and December 1998 at the University of Pittsburgh affiliated Comprehensive Heart Care Center were abstracted. The files of 1356 subjects contained the calcium score and non-cardiac findings as reported by board-certified radiologists, who interpreted the scans during the period 1996-1998. A National Death Index (NDI) Plus match was performed to ascertain cause of death. Two hundred seventy-eight of 1356 (20.5%) subjects had 1 or more non-cardiac findings on EBT scanning. Fifty-seven of 1356 (4.2%) received a recommendation for diagnostic CT follow-up. Forty-six of the 5 7 recommendations were for pulmonary nodules and 11 were for non-nodule, non-cardiac findings. Seven members of the cohort died during a short follow-up period. In 1 case, the non-cardiac finding was the cause of death. Non-cardiac findings in a healthy cohort referred for EBT coronary screening are relatively common. Findings range from clinically insignificant to the cause of death during a short follow-up period. EBT scanning is a frequently used coronary screening procedure. With the relatively high detection of significant, non-cardiac pathology in this increasingly common screening procedure, consideration should be given for radiologists to interpret the scans.

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

4.3
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