Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of 16-slice multidetector computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in obese patients
Background: Cardiac multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) scanners permit visualization of the coronary arteries with an overall good sensitivity (sens) and specificity (spec). However, in obese patients (pts), who are at higher risk to develop coronary artery disease (CAD), image quality of...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International Journal of Obesity 2006-03, Vol.30 (3), p.569-573 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background:
Cardiac multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) scanners permit visualization of the coronary arteries with an overall good sensitivity (sens) and specificity (spec). However, in obese patients (pts), who are at higher risk to develop coronary artery disease (CAD), image quality of MSCT is supposed to be limited. At present, there are no data whether the accuracy of MSCT depends on the body mass index (BMI). Thus, we compared the catheter-controlled MSCT results from normal weight and obese pts in a cohort of 117 pts with regard to sens, spec, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and image quality.
Methods and material:
In all, 21 normal weight pts (group I: BMI30, 63.0±8.5 years, number of risk factors 3.4±0.9) were examined by MSCT (Sensation 16 Speed 4 D
®
, Siemens, Germany, gantry rotation time 375 ms) and invasive coronary angiography. MSCT results were compared blinded to the results of the coronary angiography with regard to the presence or absence of a significant stenosis (>50%) in a modified AHA 13 segment (sgt) model. Image quality was assessed on a qualitative scale between 1 (very good) and 5 (insufficient image quality) for each sgt.
Results:
Sens, spec, PPV and NPV were statistically not different in all three groups (I: 0.88/0.97/0.91/0.96, II: 0.83/0.97/0.88/0.95, III: 0.87/0.99/0.96/0.96). 3 pts (group I 1, group II 2) had to be excluded from analysis due to technical problems. Group I had significantly less risk factors (
P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0307-0565 1476-5497 |
DOI: | 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803157 |