Search

Background. In the United States, functional stress testing is the primary imaging modality for patients with stable symptoms suspected to represent coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) is excellent at identifying anatomic coronary artery disease (CAD). The application of computational fluid dynamics to coronary CTA allows fractional flow reserve (FFR) to be calculated noninvasively (FFRCT). The relationship of noninvasive stress testing to coronary CTA and FFRCT in real-world clinical practice has not been studied. Methods. We evaluated 206 consecutive patients at Loyola University Chicago with suspected CAD who underwent noninvasive stress testing followed by coronary CTA and FFRCT when indicated. Patients were categorized by stress test results (positive, negative, indeterminate, and equivocal). Duke treadmill score (DTS), METS, exercise duration, and chest pain with exercise were analyzed. Lesions ≥ 50 % stenosis were considered positive by coronary CTA. FF R CT < 0.80 was considered diagnostic of ischemia. Results. Two hundred and six patients had paired noninvasive stress test and coronary CTA/FFRCT results. The median time from stress test to coronary CTA was 49 days. Average patient age was 60.3 years, and 42% were male. Of the 206 stress tests, 75% were exercise (70% echocardiographic, 26% nuclear, and 4% EKG). There were no associations of stress test results with CAD > 50 % or FF R CT < 0.80 (p = 0.927 and p = 0.910 , respectively). Of those with a positive stress test, only 30% (3/10) had CAD > 50 % and only 50% (5/10) had FF R CT < 0.80. Chest pain with exercise did not correlate with CAD > 50 % or FF R CT < 0.80 (p = 0.66 and p = 0.12 , respectively). There were no significant correlations between METS, DTS, or exercise duration and FFRCT (r = 0.093 , p = 0.274 ; r = 0.012 , p = 0.883 ; and r = 0.034 , p = 0.680 ; respectively). Conclusion. Noninvasive stress testing, functional capacity, chest pain with exercise, and DTS are not associated with anatomic or functional CAD using a diagnostic strategy of coronary CTA and FFRCT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) carry significant morbidity and mortality and are associated with substantial economic burden on healthcare systems around the world. Coronary artery disease, as one disease entity under the CVDs umbrella, had a prevalence of 7.2% among adults in the United States and incurred a financial burden of 360 billion US dollars in the years 2016–2017. The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning over the last two decades has unlocked new dimensions in the field of cardiovascular medicine. From automatic interpretations of heart rhythm disorders via smartwatches, to assisting in complex decision-making, AI has quickly expanded its realms in medicine and has demonstrated itself as a promising tool in helping clinicians guide treatment decisions. Understanding complex genetic interactions and developing clinical risk prediction models, advanced cardiac imaging, and improving mortality outcomes are just a few areas where AI has been applied in the domain of coronary artery disease. Through this review, we sought to summarize the advances in AI relating to coronary artery disease, current limitations, and future perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and contrast-enhanced thoracic CT (CECT) are distinctly different diagnostic procedures that involve intravenous contrast-enhanced CT of the chest. The technical component of these procedures is reimbursed at the same rate by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). This study tests the hypothesis that the direct costs of performing these exams are significantly different., Methods: Direct costs for both procedures were measured using a time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) model. The exams were segmented into four phases: preparation, scanning, post-scan monitoring, and image processing. Room occupancy and direct labor times were collected for scans of 54 patients (28 CCTA and 26 CECT studies), in seven medical facilities within the USA and used to impute labor and equipment cost. Contrast material costs were measured directly. Cost differences between the exams were analyzed for significance and variability., Results: Mean CCTA duration was 3.2 times longer than CECT (121 and 37 ​min, respectively. p ​< ​0.01). Mean CCTA direct costs were 3.4 times those of CECT ($189.52 and $55.28, respectively, p ​< ​0.01). Both labor and capital equipment costs for CCTA were significantly more expensive (6.5 and 1.8-fold greater, respectively, p ​< ​0.001). Segmented by procedural phase, CCTA was both longer and more expensive for each (p ​< ​0.01). Mean direct costs for CCTA exceeded the standard CMS technical reimbursement of $182.25 without accounting for indirect or overhead costs., Conclusion: The direct cost of performing CCTA is significantly higher than CECT, and thus reimbursement schedules that treat these procedures similarly undervalue the resources required to perform CCTA and possibly decrease access to the procedure., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:G.D.R. is an advisor to HeartFlow, outside the submitted work. C. B. gave a lecture in 2019 for HeartFlow, outside the submitted work. B.B.G. is supported by institutional grants to his institution from Siemens Healthineers and the NIH, outside the submitted work. No interests or disclosures declared for M.E.Z., J.C.B., M.G.R., R.B., G.E.W., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Coronary atherosclerotic disease is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity due to major cardiovascular events in the United States and abroad. Risk stratification and early preventive measures can reduce major cardiovascular events given the long latent asymptomatic period. Imaging tests can detect subclinical coronary atherosclerosis and aid initiation of targeted preventative efforts based on patient risk. A summary of available imaging tests for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk asymptomatic patients is outlined in this document. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)