Prognostic value of non-invasive coronary computed tomography angiography: where are we now?

  • Ronen Rubinshtein
  • David A. Halon
  • Basil S. Lewis
Editorial Comment

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has become a robust non-invasive method in recent years for evaluating coronary atherosclerosis [1]. High quality CCTA (64 slice and higher) is currently probably the most sensitive non-invasive modality for diagnosing obstructive and non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), with high negative predictive value [1, 2]. This is not surprising considering that CCTA examines coronary anatomy (or minimal luminal diameter), while other non-invasive methods invoking physiologic stress (such as myocardial perfusion imaging or stress echocardiography) evaluate the physiologic consequences of coronary arterial narrowing, i.e. myocardial ischemia. Regarding prognosis, however, the degree of inducible myocardial ischemia or the presence of extensive myocardial fibrosis and reduced left ventricular function as assessed by physiologic testing are indeed established powerful predictors of adverse cardiac events [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. For this reason,...


Compute Tomography Angiography Coronary Compute Tomography Angiography Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease Conventional Coronary Angiography Vessel Coronary Artery Disease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Achenbach S (2006) Computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:1919–1928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bastarrika G, Lee YS, Huda W, Ruzsics B, Costello P, Schoepf UJ (2009) CT of coronary artery disease. Radiology 253:317–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller TD, Christian TF, Clements IP, Hodge DO, Gray DT, Gibbons RJ (1998) Prognostic value of exercise thallium-201 imaging in a community population. Am Heart J 135:663–670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H, Cohen I, Friedman JD, Shaw LJ (2002) Value of stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in patients with normal resting electrocardiograms: an evaluation of incremental prognostic value and cost-effectiveness. Circulation 105:823–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crawford MH (1991) Risk stratification after myocardial infarction with exercise and Doppler echocardiography. Circulation 84(3 Suppl):I163–I1166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldenberg I, Vyas AK, Hall WJ, Moss AJ, Wang H, He H, Zareba W, McNitt S, Andrews ML (2008) MADIT-II Investigators. Risk stratification for primary implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 51:288–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, Chen EL, Parker MA, Simonetti O, Klocke FJ, Bonow RO, Judd RM (2000) The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med 343:1445–1453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bell MR, Gersh BJ, Schaff HV, Holmes DR Jr, Fisher LD, Alderman EL, Myers WO, Parsons LS, Reeder GS (1992) Effect of completeness of revascularization on long-term outcome of patients with three-vessel disease undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. A report from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry. Circulation 86:446–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pepine CJ, Sharaf B, Andrews TC, Forman S, Geller N, Knatterud G, Mahmarian J, Ouyang P, Rogers WJ, Sopko G, Steingart R, Stone PH, Conti CR (1997) Relation between clinical, angiographic and ischemic findings at baseline and ischemia-related adverse outcomes at 1 year in the Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot study. ACIP Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 29:1483–1489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mark DB, Nelson CL, Califf RM, Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Jones RH, Fortin DF, Stack RS, Glower DD, Smith LR et al (1994) Continuing evolution of therapy for coronary artery disease. Initial results from the era of coronary angioplasty. Circulation 89:2015–2025PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lichtlen PR, Bargheer K, Wenzlaff P (1995) Long-term prognosis of patients with anginalike chest pain and normal coronary angiographic findings. J Am Coll Cardiol 25:1013–1018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Polonsky TS, McClelland RL, Jorgensen NW, Bild DE, Burke GL, Guerci AD, Greenland P (2010) Coronary artery calcium score and risk classification for coronary heart disease prediction. JAMA 303:1610–1616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Achenbach S, Daniel WG (2005) Computed tomography of the coronary arteries: more than meets the (angiographic) eye. J Am Coll Cardiol 46:155–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdulla J, Asferg C, Kofoed KF (2010) Prognostic value of absence or presence of coronary artery disease determined by 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, Boersma E, de Roos A, Van der Wall EE, Bax JJ (2007) Prognostic value of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:62–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaemperli O, Valenta I, Schepis T, Husmann L, Scheffel H, Desbiolles L, Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann PA (2008) Coronary 64-slice CT angiography predicts outcome in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol 18:1162–1173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T, Peled N, Lewis BS (2009) Cardiac computed tomographic angiography for risk stratification and prediction of late cardiovascular outcome events in patients with a chest pain syndrome. Int J Cardiol 137:108–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lehman SJ, Schlett CL, Bamberg F, Lee H, Donnelly P, Shturman L, Kriegel MF, Brady TJ, Hoffmann U (2009) Assessment of coronary plaque progression in coronary computed tomography angiography using a semiquantitative score. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2:1262–1270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klass O, Kleinhans S, Walker MJ, Olszewski M, Feuerlein S, Juchems M, Hoffmann MH (2010) Coronary plaque imaging with 256-slice multidetector computed tomography: interobserver variability of volumetric lesion parameters with semiautomatic plaque analysis software. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Motoyama S, Sarai M, Harigaya H, Anno H, Inoue K, Hara T, Naruse H, Ishii J, Hishida H, Wong ND, Virmani R, Kondo T, Ozaki Y, Narula J (2009) Computed tomographic angiography characteristics of atherosclerotic plaques subsequently resulting in acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:49–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronen Rubinshtein
    • 1
  • David A. Halon
    • 1
  • Basil S. Lewis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Ruth and Bruce Rappaport School of MedicineTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations