Search

Abstract Background Diabetics have high prevalence of subclinical coronary artery disease (CAD) with typical characteristics (diffuse disease, large calcifications). Although 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) coronary angiography has high diagnostic accuracy to detect CAD, its diagnostic performance in diabetics with suspected CAD is unknown. To compare the diagnostic performance of 64-slice MDCT between diabetics and non-diabetics with suspected CAD scheduled for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Methods We enrolled one hundred and five diabetic patients (92 men, age 65 +/- 9 years, Group 1) and 105 non-diabetic patients (63 men, age 63+/-5 years, Group 2) with indication to ICA for suspected CAD undergoing coronary 64-slice MDCT before ICA. Results In Group 1, the overall feasibility of coronary artery visualization was 93.8%. The most frequent artifact was blooming due to large coronary calcifications (54 artifacts, 67%). In Group 2, the overall feasibility was significantly higher vs. Group 1 (97%, p < 0.0001). In Group 1, the segment-based analysis showed a MDCT sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for the detection of ≥50% luminal narrowing of 77%, 90%, 70%, 93% and 87%, respectively. In Group 2, all these parameters were significantly higher vs. Group 1. In the patient-based analysis, specificity, negative predictive value and accuracy were significantly lower in Group 1 vs. Group 2. Conclusions Although MDCT has high sensitivity for early identification of significant CAD in diabetics, its diagnostic performance is significantly reduced in these patients as compared to non-diabetics with similar clinical characteristics.

Background: Diabetics have high prevalence of subclinical coronary artery disease (CAD) with typical characteristics (diffuse disease, large calcifications). Although 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) coronary angiography has high diagnostic accuracy to detect CAD, its diagnostic performance in diabetics with suspected CAD is unknown. To compare the diagnostic performance of 64-slice MDCT between diabetics and nondiabetics with suspected CAD scheduled for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Methods: We enrolled one hundred and five diabetic patients (92 men, age 65 +/- 9 years, Group 1) and 105 nondiabetic patients (63 men, age 63+/-5 years, Group 2) with indication to ICA for suspected CAD undergoing coronary 64-slice MDCT before ICA. Results: In Group 1, the overall feasibility of coronary artery visualization was 93.8%. The most frequent artifact was blooming due to large coronary calcifications (54 artifacts, 67%). In Group 2, the overall feasibility was significantly higher vs. Group 1 (97%, p < 0.0001). In Group 1, the segment-based analysis showed a MDCT sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for the detection of %50% luminal narrowing of 77%, 90%, 70%, 93% and 87%, respectively. In Group 2, all these parameters were significantly higher vs. Group 1. In the patient-based analysis, specificity, negative predictive value and accuracy were significantly lower in Group 1 vs. Group 2. Conclusions: Although MDCT has high sensitivity for early identification of significant CAD in diabetics, its diagnostic performance is significantly reduced in these patients as compared to non-diabetics with similar clinical characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has shown high morbidity and mortality and the relationship between pulmonary embolism (PE) and COVID-19 is well established in the literature., Methods: We describe the characteristics of a cohort of COVID-19 patients (EP-COV) hospitalized at our Centre with PE, investigating how COVID-19 may have influenced their outcomes, as compared to patients without COVID-19 hospitalized for PE in the same months of 2020 (EP-2020) and 2019 (EP-2019)., Results: EP-COV patients (n=25) were younger (60.5 ± 8.5 vs 71.4 ± 14.5 vs 70.9 ± 11.8 years, p=0.003), more frequently male (76% vs 48% vs 35%, p=0.016), with a lower history of neoplasia (12% vs 47% vs 40%, p=0.028) and more clinically severe (SOFA score 3.4 ± 1.4 vs 2.2 ± 1.4 vs 1 ± 1.1, p<0.001 and PaO2/FiO2 ratio 223.8 ± 75.5 vs 306.5 ± 49.3 vs 311.8 ± 107.5) than EP-2020 (n=17) and EP-2019 patients (n=20). D-dimer and C-reactive protein were higher in EP-COV (p=0.038 e p<0.001, respectively). The rate of concomitant deep vein thrombosis associated with PE did not differ significantly between the three groups. EP-COV patients developed PE more frequently during in-hospital stay than non-COVID-19 patients (p = 0.016). The mortality rate was higher in EP-COV than in EP-2020 and EP-2019 patients (36% vs 0% vs 5%, p=0.019)., Conclusions: In our study, the risk factors for PE in COVID-19 patients seem to differ from the traditional risk factors for venous thromboembolism; EP-COV patients are clinically more severe and display a higher mortality rate than EP-2020 and EP-2019 patients.