ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of elevated heart rate (HR) on the diagnostic accuracy and image quality of second-generation 320-detector computed tomography coronary angiography (320-CTCA). METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected coronary disease referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were prospectively recruited and underwent 320-CTCA. Pre-scan beta-blockers were administered if native HR>80 bpm and post-scan cohorts stratified by traditional (HR ≤60 bpm) and elevated HR (61-80 bpm). A wider phase window was used for the elevated HR group (30-80%). 320-CTCA and ICA were analyzed by independent readers blinded to other data. Significant disease was defined as ≥50% visual stenosis on ICA. Uninterpretable segments by 320-CTCA were considered to be significant on an intention-to-diagnose principle. Image quality was assessed by 5-point Likert score. RESULTS: Of 107 patients studied (1,662 segments), there was no significant difference in sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value between patients with HR ≤60 bpm (n=55) vs. HR 61-80 bpm (n=52): 97%, 88%, 95%, 94% vs. 100%, 88%, 95%, 100%; Receiver operator characteristic-area under the curve 0.93 vs. 0.94, P=0.82). Overall per-patient diagnostic accuracy was 96% in both groups with no significant difference in interpretable segments (Likert ≥2) or median radiation dose (2.4 mSv vs. 2.7 mSv, P=0.35). Only 4/1,662 (0.2%) segments were uninterpretable by motion artefact in the whole cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HR >60 and up to 80bpm, second generation 320-CTCA provides comparably adequate diagnostic accuracy to HR ≤60 without significantly impacting upon overall segmental evaluability.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the awareness of a recent mass media campaign, and its influence on knowledge and prehospital times, in a cohort of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients admitted to an Australian hospital. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted 199 semistructured interviews with consecutive ACS patients who were aged 35 to 75 years, competent to provide consent, and English speaking. Questions addressed the factors known to predict prehospital delay, awareness of the campaign, and whether it increased knowledge and influenced actions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between campaign awareness and a 1-hour delay in deciding to seek medical attention (patient delay) and a 2-hour delay in presenting to hospital (prehospital delay). The median age was 62 years (IQR=53 to 68 years), and 68% (n=136) were male. Awareness of the campaign was reported by 127 (64%) patients, with most of these patients stating the campaign (1) increased their understanding of what is a heart attack (63%), (2) increased their awareness of the signs and symptoms of heart attack (68%), and (3) influenced their actions in response to symptoms (43%). After adjustment for other predictors, awareness of the campaign was significantly associated with patient delay time of ≤1 hour (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.25, 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.91, P=0.04) and prehospital delay time ≤2 hours (AOR=3.11, 95% CI: 1.36 to 7.08, P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed reasonably high awareness of the warning signs campaign, which was significantly associated with shorter prehospital decision-making and faster presentation to hospital.
