Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 2019; 112(1): 104-106

Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Takes the Center Stage and Here is Why

Illan Gottlieb, Marcio Sommer Bittencourt , Carlos Eduardo Rochitte , João L. Cavalcante

DOI: 10.5935/abc.20190003

Max Planck once said that “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” In its beginnings, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) was accused of having too low accuracy for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) to be used in clinical practice. Over the last decade, major technical developments such as larger axial coverage (from 2 cm to 16 cm) and improved temporal resolution, have enabled CCTA to become by far the most accurate non-invasive imaging method for diagnosis of obstructive CAD, with sensitivity and specificity of approximately 95% and 90%, respectively.

Then CCTA was burdened with the accusation of exposing patients to radiation doses so high, that warranted some society guidelines to specifically point this out and limit its use. At that time, CCTA exposed patients to doses ranging from 20 to 25 mSV, while triphasic abdomen CT exposed patients to 30 to 40 mSv and scintigraphic myocardial perfusion studies with Thallium used up to 40 mSv. In 2018, radiation exposure from CCTA dropped to well below 5 mSv (most advanced clinical centers use much less), a fraction of the dose used in myocardial perfusion studies with MIBI tetrophosmin. Then the cost-effectiveness wave came with societies rightfully demanding proof that CCTA offered more value at an acceptable cost compared to other imaging modalities, and CCTA once again proved to be more cost-effective than other modalities. Although one hardly finds cost-effectiveness studies comparing nuclear scans with ECG treadmill tests, providing better diagnosis performance is not enough anymore. More recently, this strategy has even been put into challenge in large randomized clinical trials comparing CCTA with the standard of care in the investigation of suspected CAD both in the acute and in the outpatient settings.^–

[…]