Noninvasive Evaluation of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts with 16-Slice Multidetector Computed Tomography
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1532/HSF98.20111075Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of 16-slice multislice, multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) angiography for the evaluation of grafts in patients with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Methods: Fifty-eight consecutive patients with CABG who underwent both MDCT and conventional invasive coronary angiography were included. The median time interval between the 2 procedures was 10 days (range, 1-32 days). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of MDCT for the detection of occluded grafts were calculated. The accuracy of MDCT angiography for detecting significant stenoses in patent grafts and the evaluability of proximal and distal anastomoses were also investigated.
Results: Optimal diagnostic images could not be obtained for only 3 (2%) of 153 grafts. Evaluation of the remaining 150 grafts revealed values for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy of the MDCT angiography procedure for the diagnosis of occluded grafts of 87%, 97%, 94%, 93%, and 92%, respectively. All of the proximal anastomoses were optimally visualized. In 4 (8%) of 50 patent arterial grafts, however, the distal anastomotic region could not be evaluated because of motion and surgical-clip artifacts. The accuracy of MDCT angiography for the detection of significant stenotic lesions was relatively low (the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 67%, 98%, 50%, and 99%, respectively). The number of significant lesions was insufficient to reach a reliable conclusion, however.
Conclusion: Our study showed that MDCT angiography with 16-slice systems has acceptable diagnostic performance for the evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft patency.
References
Bourassa MG. 1991. Fate of venous grafts: the past, the present and the future. J Am Coll Cardiol 17:1081-3.nCampeau L, Enjalbert M, Lesperance J, et al. 1984. The relation of risk factors to the development of atherosclerosis in saphenous-vein bypass grafts and the progression of disease in the native circulation. A study 10 years after aortocoronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 311:1329-32.nFeuchtner GM, Schachner T, Bonatti J, et al. 2007. Diagnostic performance of 64-slice computed tomography in evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:574-80.nFitzgibbon GM, Kafka HP, Leach AJ, Keon WJ, Hooper GD, Burton JR. 1996. Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic follow-up of 5,065 grafts related to survival and reoperation in 1,388 patients during 25 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 28:616-26.nGarrett HE, Dennis EW, DeBakey ME. 1973. Aortocoronary bypass with saphenous vein graft. Seven-year follow-up. JAMA 223:792-4.nHouslay ES, Lawton T, Sengupta A, Uren NG, McKillop G, Newby DE. 2007. Non-invasive assessment of coronary artery bypass graft patency using 16-slice computed tomography angiography. J Cardiothorac Surg 2:27.nMalagutti P, Nieman K, Meijboom WB, et al. 2007. Use of 64-slice CT in symptomatic patients after coronary bypass surgery: evaluation of grafts and coronary arteries. Eur Heart J 28:1879-85.nMeyer TS, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M, et al. 2007. Improved noninvasive assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts with 64-slice computed tomographic angiography in an unselected patient population. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:946-50.nOnuma Y, Tanabe K, Chihara R, et al. 2007. Evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafts and native coronary arteries using 64-slice multidetector computed tomography. Am Heart J 154:519-26.nRomagnoli A, Patrei A, Mancini A, et al. 2010. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice CT in evaluating coronary artery bypass grafts and of the native coronary arteries. Radiol Med 115:1167-78.nRopers D, Ulzheimer S, Wenkel E, et al. 2001. Investigation of aortocoronary artery bypass grafts by multislice spiral computed tomography with electrocardiographic-gated image reconstruction. Am J Cardiol 88:792-5.nSchlosser T, Konorza T, Hunold P, Kuhl H, Schmermund A, Barkhausen J. 2004. Noninvasive visualization of coronary artery bypass grafts using 16-detector row computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:1224-9.nTürkvatan A, Biyiko?lu SF, Büyükbayraktar FG, et al. 2009. Noninvasive evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafts and native coronary arteries: is 16-slice multidetector CT useful? Diagn Interv Radiol 15:43-50.nUva MS, Matias F, Mesquita A, et al. 2008. Sixteen-slice multidetector computed tomography for graft patency evaluation after coronary artery bypass surgery. J Card Surg 23:17-22.n[VACABG]Veterans Administration Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. 1984. Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery for stable angina. N Engl J Med 311:1333-9.nvon Kiedrowski H, Wiemer M, Franzke K, et al. 2009. Non-invasive coronary angiography: the clinical value of multi-slice computed tomography in the assessment of patients with prior coronary bypass surgery. Evaluating grafts and native vessels. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 25:161-70.nYamamoto M, Kimura F, Niinami H, Suda Y, Ueno E, Takeuchi Y. 2006. Noninvasive assessment of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery by 16-channel multidetector-row computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 81:820-7.n
