Patients' views of cardiac computed tomography angiography compared with conventional coronary angiography

Journal of Thoracic Imaging

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 36-39

  Sandgaard, Niels C F ^a   Diederichsen, Axel C P ^a   Petersen, Henrik ^a   Høilund Carlsen, Poul F ^a   Mickley, Hans ^a  

^a ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

computed tomography; coronary angiography; discomfort; preferences; sick days

Indexed keywords

ABSENTEEISM; ADULT; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; BACKACHE; BLEEDING; CARDIAC PATIENT; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVENTIONAL ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PAIN; PATIENT PREFERENCE; REVIEW; STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE;

CONTRAST MEDIA; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IOHEXOL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TRIIODOBENZOIC ACIDS;

EID: 84855200107     PISSN: 08835993     EISSN: 15360237     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RTI.0b013e3182108091     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Levenson B, Albrecht A, Gohring S, et al. 5th Report of the German association of cardiologists in private practice (BNK) on quality assurance in cardiac catheterization and coronary intervention 2003-2005. Herz. 2007;32:73-84. (Pubitemid 46333816)
2. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362: 886-895.
3. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1724-1732.
4. Stein PD, Yaekoub AY, Matta F, et al. 64-slice CT for diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Am J Med. 2008;121:715-725.
5. Schroeder S, Achenbach S, Bengel F, et al. Cardiac computed tomography: indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements: report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:531-556. (Pubitemid 351264173)
6. Bluemke DA, Achenbach S, Budoff M, et al. Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: magnetic resonance angiography and multidetector computed tomography angiography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association committee on cardiovascular imaging and intervention of the council on cardiovascular radiology and intervention, and the councils on clinical cardiology and cardiovascular disease in the young. Circulation. 2008;118:586-606.
7. Diederichsen AC, Petersen H, Jensen LO, et al. Diagnostic value of cardiac 64-slice computed tomography: importance of coronary calcium. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2009;43:337-344.
8. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1999.
9. Meijboom WB, van Mieghem CA, Mollet NR, et al. 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with high, intermediate, or low pretest probability of significant coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1469-1475. (Pubitemid 47496246)
10. Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:iii-iv, ix-143.
11. Cole JH, Chunn VM, Morrow JA, et al. Cost implications of initial computed tomography angiography as opposed to catheterization in patients with mildly abnormal or equivocal myocardial perfusion scans. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2007;1:21-26. (Pubitemid 47494419)
12. Kim KP, Einstein AJ, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Coronary artery calcification screening: estimated radiation dose and cancer risk. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1188-1194.
13. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007; 298:317-323. (Pubitemid 47080486)
14. Mitka M. Cardiac CT cancer risks less than feared? JAMA. 2009;301:367.
15. Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology. 2008;248:431-437.
16. Herzog BA, Wyss CA, Husmann L, et al. First head-to-head comparison of effective radiation dose from low-dose 64-slice CT with prospective ECG-triggering versus invasive coronary angiography. Heart. 2009;95:1656-1661.
17. Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, et al. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology. 2002;222:337-345. (Pubitemid 34106101)
18. von Wagner C, Halligan S, Atkin WS, et al. Choosing between CT colonography and colonoscopy in the diagnostic context: a qualitative study of influences on patient preferences. Health Expect. 2009;12:18-26.
19. Schonenberger E, Schnapauff D, Teige F, et al. Patient acceptance of noninvasive and invasive coronary angiography. PLoS One. 2007;2:e246.
20. Dewey M, Zimmermann E, Deissenrieder F, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy. Comparison of results with cardiac catheterization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation. 2009;120:867-875.