The importance of imaging methods in the cardiovascular disease prevention

Czech version

Authors: MUDr. Jan Baxa, Ph.D.
Authors‘ workplace: FN Plzeň a LF UK v Plzni ; Klinika zobrazovacích metod
Published in: Kardiol Rev Int Med 2013, 15(4): 224-229
Category:

Overview

Imaging methods have been used mostly in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases; however, recently their use in primary prevention has been significantly increasing. Detection and quantification of coronary artery calcification performed by computed tomography are among the easiest and also the most widely used examinations in prevention, but the practical importance of this examination is still controversial. CT angiography is the only non-invasive method that is able not only to quantify coronary artery stenoses, but also to assess the character of the atherosclerotic plaque. The use of this fact in routine practice is currently a widely discussed topic. Most recently, perfusion parameters of myocardium can be evaluated using a CT, which makes it the most versatile imaging method in cardiology with still less radiation exposure due to technical progress. The main benefit of magnetic resonance imaging in primary prevention is the ability to detect so-called „silent ischemia“. Scintigraphic methods are significantly limited by the high radiation exposure.

Keywords:
imaging methods – calcium score – computed tomography – magnetic resonance imaging – prevention of cardiovascular diseases

Sources

1. van Werkhoven JM, Schuijf JD, Gaemperli O et al. Prognostic value of multislice computed tomography and gated single-photon emission computed tomography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53: 623–632.

2. Budoff MJ. Prevalence of soft plaque detection with computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48: 319–321.

3. Ohnesorge B et al. Multi-slice and dual-source CT in cardiac imaging. Berlin Heidelberg: Verlag-Springer 2007.

4. Baxa J, Ferda J. Multidetektorová výpočetní tomografie srdce. Praha: Galén 2012.

5. Budoff MJ, Gul K. Computed tomographic cardiovascular imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2006; 27: 32–41.

6. Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ et al. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990; 15: 827–832.

7. Hadamitzky M, Distler R, Meyer T et al. Prognostic value of coronary computed tomographic angiography in comparison with calcium scoring and clinical risk scores. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 4: 16–23.

8. Shaw LJ, Raggi P, Schisterman E et al. Prognostic value of cardiac risk factors and coronary artery calcium screening for all-cause mortality. Radiology 2003; 228: 826–833.

9. Polonsky TS, McClelland RL, Jorgensen NW et al. Coronary artery calcium score and risk classification for coronary heart disease prediction. JAMA 2010; 303: 1610–1616.

10. Haffner SM, Lehto S, Rönnemaa T et al. Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 229–234.

11. Elkeles RS, Godsland IF, Feher MD et al. Coronary calcium measurement improves prediction of cardiovascular events in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes: the PREDICT study. Eur Heart J 2008; 29: 2244–2251.

12. Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Busch S et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source computed tomography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Invest Radiol 2007; 42: 684–691.

13. Williams MC, Reid JH, McKillop G et al. Cardiac and coronary CT comprehensive imaging approach in the assessment of coronary heart disease. Heart 2011; 97: 1198–1205.

14. Ferda J, Baxa J. Hodnocení aterosklerotických plátů koronárních tepen při CT-angiografii. Ces Radiol 2009; 63: 281–289.

15. Achenbach S, Moselewski F, Ropers D et al. Detection of calcified and noncalcified coronary atherosclerotic plaque by contrast-enhanced, submillimeter multidetector spiral computed tomography: a segment-based comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 2004; 109: 14–17.

16. Fischer C, Hulten E, Belur P et al. Coronary CT angiography versus intravascular ultrasound for estimation of coronary stenosis and atherosclerotic plaque burden: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2013; 7: 256–266.

17. Ostrom MP, Gopal A, Ahmadi N et al. Mortality incidence and the severity of coronary atherosclerosis assessed by computed tomography angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 1335–1343.

18. Chow BJ, Wells GA, Chen L et al. Prognostic value of 64-slice cardiac computed tomography severity of coronary artery disease, coronary atherosclerosis, and left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 1017–1028.

19. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. Circulation 2010; 122: e525–e555.

20. Hadamitzky M, Meyer T, Hein F et al. Prognostic value of coronary computed tomographic angiography in asymptomatic patients. Am J Cardiol 2010; 105: 1746–1751.

21. Baxa J, Ferda J, Zikmund M et al. CT angiografie koronárních tepen u pacientů se zvýšeným rizikem vzniku ischemické choroby srdeční – prospektivní studie s dvouletým sledováním. Ces Radiol 2010; 64: 301–306.

22. Greif M, von Ziegler F, Bamberg F et al. CT stress perfusion imaging for detection of haemodynamically relevant coronary stenosis as defined by FFR. Heart 2013; 99: 1004–1011.

23. Burke AP, Kolodgie FD, Zieske A et al. Morphologic findings of coronary atherosclerotic plaques in diabetics: a postmortem study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2004; 24: 1266–1271.

24. Bogaert J et al. Clinical cardiac MRI. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 2005.

25. Kitagawa K, Sakuma H, Nagata M et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion MRI and late gadolinium-enhanced MRI for detecting flow-limiting coronary artery disease: a multicenter study. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 2808–2816.

26. Burgess DC, Hunt D, Li L et al. Incidence and predictors of silent myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes and the effect of fenofibrate: an analysis from the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study. Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 92–99.

27. Di Carli MF, Hachamovitch R. New technology for noninvasive evaluation of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2007; 115: 1464–1480.

28. Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG, Kuntz KM et al. Exercise echocardiography or exercise SPECT imaging? A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. JAMA 1998; 280: 913–920.

29. Elhendy A, Schinkel A, Bax JJ et al. Long-term prognosis after a normal exercise stress Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT study. J Nucl Cardiol 2003; 10: 261–266.

30. Rajagopalan N, Miller TD, Hodge DO et al. Identifying high-risk asymptomatic diabetic patients who are candidates for screening stress single-photon emission computed tomography imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45: 43–49.

Labels

Paediatric cardiology Internal medicine Cardiac surgery Cardiology

End organ damage in arterial hypertension and cardiovascular risk

Current approach to the options of primary and secondary prevention of ischemic cerebrovascular accident

Psychosocial risk factors of cardiovascular diseases and possibilities of their intervention

Acute cardiac liver injury and levosimendan

Levosimendan treatment as a „bridge therapy“ in a patient with metastatic testicular cancer and severe systolic heart failure - competition case report

Syncope of multifactorial etiology or several symptoms of the same disease? - competition case report

Article was published in

Cardiology Review

2013 Issue 4