Clinical relevance and scope of accidental extracoronary findings in coronary computed tomography angiography: A cardiac versus thoracic FOV study
Introduction
Coronary multislice computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is an arising non-invasive imaging technique for the evaluation of the coronary arterial tree [1]. Unlike conventional angiographic methods, CCTA has the ability to provide morphological information about the entire heart and the thorax. Although typically confined to a small field of view (FOV) focused on the heart to enable optimal spatial resolution of the coronary arteries, data of surrounding thoracic organs are acquired complementary during CCTA.
Each anomalous finding that cannot be related pathophysiologically to the target disease is regarded as accidental [2]. To this date there is modest information regarding the clinical relevance of unexpected imaging findings in patients undergoing CCTA. Some discrepancies exist regarding the potential benefits of specifically reanalysing CCTA for extracardiac disease. Budoff et al. suggest that specifically overreading the data set for non-cardiac findings would most likely cause additional anxiety to the patient and lead to additional cost, without proven benefit [3]. Several other authors, such as Kirsch et al. [4] found this approach unsatisfactory and recommend thoroughly and methodically evaluating extracoronary incidental findings, and reporting on their clinical significance. Other studies [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] report varying prevalences [2] of accidental findings with a wide range from 25% to 79%, however the majority report a concerning high number of clinically significant findings ranging from 4% to 56% [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. These variations can be attributed to different scanner technology (electron-beam computed tomography (EBCT) or multislice computed tomography (CT)), the examination technique (e.g. calcium scoring or CCTA), or the FOV setting applied (small or full field of view). Hence an arising issue is the effect of a small (“cardiac”) FOV versus a large (“thoracic”) FOV setting, not at least since reading thoracic CT scans necessitates specialized training in radiological diagnoses of thoracic organs not included in a cardiologist's curriculum.
The purpose of this study was to ancillary analyse the clinical significance and the spectrum of accidental findings in a large series of patients referred to CCTA, and to compare a small (“cardiac”) FOV with a full (“thoracic”) FOV setting.
Section snippets
Study design
The study population consisted of 1084 consecutive patients (56% males and 44% females) with a mean age of 58 ± 10.8 years (range, from 37 to 87 years). The patients were referred to CCTA for evaluation of suspected coronary artery disease [16] between November 2005 and March 2008. The CT scans of 542 patients (group A) were reconstructed with a small field of view restricted to the heart. In the following 542 consecutive patients (group B) an additional large FOV covering the entire thorax was
Results
There was no difference in gender and age between the groups with small (group A) and large (group B) FOV. There were 55% (300/542) males in group A and 57% (310/542) males in group B [p = n.s.], and the mean age was 58.3 ± 11.2 and 57.6 ± 10.2 years [p = 0.268], respectively.
Discussion
It is currently intensely discussed whether non-coronary findings on a CCTA examination should be reported or not. Only 9% of cardiology centers read the non-coronary part of the CCTA scan, but still 72% of cardiologists believe that the interpretation of non-cardiac findings requires input from the radiologists [20].
Our data show that the prevalence of clinically significant findings is high with 25.6%, and markedly higher by using a full “thoracic” FOV, supporting the interpretation of
Limitations
We have validated subsequent patient management only, but we did not monitor our patients over a long-term follow-up period. We acknowledge that the readings were performed by one experienced, board certified radiologist, and we did not perform an interobserver variability.
Minor pathologies related to the spine were not included in this data presentation.
Conclusion
It is reasonable to conclude, as approved by the recently published training guidelines from the ACC/ASNC/SCCT [28], that it is necessary to educate and train all individuals performing CCTA examinations in the recognition of unexpected non-coronary CT findings, or to establish a multidisciplinary approach of radiologists and cardiologists. Not at least a false negative rate of 13.5% was reported for emergency thoracic CT scans by Wechsler et al. [27], pointing out the importance of radiology
References (29)
- et al.
Considerations when introducing a new cardiac MDCT service: avoiding the pitfalls
Clin Radiol
(2008) - et al.
Frequency and severity of “incidentalomas” encountered during electron beam computed tomography for coronary calcium in middle-aged army personnel
Am J Cardiol
(2002) - et al.
The prevalence of extracardiac findings by multidetector computed tomography before atrial fibrillation ablation
Am Heart J
(2008) - et al.
Noncardiac findings in cardiac imaging with multidetector computed tomography
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2006) - et al.
ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006: appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2006) - et al.
Multislice computed tomography for detection of patients with aortic valve stenosis and quantification of severity
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2006) - et al.
Survey of current practices of the specialty of physicians interpreting cardiac and noncardiac findings of coronary computed tomographic angiography
Am J Cardiol
(2007) - et al.
Task force 13: training in advanced cardiovascular imaging (computed tomography) endorsed by the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2008) - et al.
Prevalence of incidental findings in computed tomographic screening of the chest: a systematic review
J Comput Assist Tomogr
(2008) - et al.
Incidental findings with cardiac CT evaluation: should we read beyond the heart?
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
(2006)