Lipomatous hypertrophy presenting as superior vena cava syndrome.

We report a rare case of invasive lipomatous hypertrophy of the interatrial septum presenting as superior vena cava syndrome requiring surgical resection. Lipomatous hypertrophy of the interatrial septum is a common incidental finding and is thought to be a relatively benign condition. Classically, its appearance on cardiac computed tomography is primarily fatty with low attenuation, sharp margins and minimal enhancement, involving the interatrial septum with relative sparing of the fossa ovalis. In masses of unclear etiology or in rare, extensive cases resulting in cavity obstruction, such as ours, cardiac computed tomography provides complementary information to define tumor extent and characterize classic mass features facilitating diagnosis and management.

Prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of the ability of cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to predict future cardiovascular events and death. BACKGROUND: The diagnostic accuracy of CCTA is well reported. The prognostic value of CCTA has been described in several studies, but many were underpowered. Pooling outcomes increases the power to predict rare events. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for longitudinal studies of CCTA with at least 3 months follow-up of symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) reporting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), consisting of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. Annualized event rates were pooled using a bivariate mixed-effects binomial regression model to calculate summary likelihood ratios and receiver-operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Eighteen studies evaluated 9,592 patients with a median follow-up of 20 months. The pooled annualized event rate for obstructive (any vessel with >50% luminal stenosis) versus normal CCTA was 8.8% versus 0.17% per year for MACE (p < 0.05) and 3.2% versus 0.15% for death or MI (p < 0.05). The pooled negative likelihood ratio for MACE after normal CCTA findings was 0.008 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0004 to 0.17, p < 0.001), the positive likelihood ratio was 1.70 (95% CI: 1.42 to 2.02, p < 0.001), sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.00, p < 0.001), and specificity was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.31 to 0.52, p < 0.001). Stratifying by no CAD, nonobstructive CAD (worst stenosis <50%), or obstructive CAD, there were incrementally increasing adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse cardiovascular events among patients with normal findings on CCTA are rare. There are incrementally increasing future MACE with increasing CAD by CCTA.

Calcium scoring and chest pain: is it dead on arrival?

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring has been shown to be a measure of overall coronary artery disease (CAD) burden and is a well-validated screening test that significantly improves cardiovascular risk prediction in asymptomatic adults beyond that provided with standard risk factors. The absence of coronary artery calcification identifies persons at very low cardiovascular risk. Among symptomatic patients, calcium scans have been shown to have high sensitivity for the presence of obstructive CAD among stable, low-intermediate risk middle-aged adults. This has prompted many to advocate for the expanded use of calcium scanning as a diagnostic test in symptomatic patients to rapidly identify patients without CAD, serving as a filter for invasive coronary angiography or hospital admission or both. However, recent studies suggest that the negative predictive value of CAC scoring to exclude obstructive CAD may be significantly decreased among patients at higher pretest likelihood for obstructive CAD, consistent with Bayesian reasoning. In a point-counterpoint format, this article discusses several considerations and potential limitations to the widespread use of CAC to exclude obstructive CAD in symptomatic patients which include (1) the effect of pretest disease prevalence on test accuracy, (2) limited clinical efficiency due to low specificity for obstructive CAD and myocardial ischemia and high background prevalence of CAC in adults, (3) occurrence of CAC relatively late in the atherosclerotic process, (4) lack of association of CAC with vulnerable and culprit coronary artery lesions, and (5) interindividual and racial heterogeneity in the process of atherosclerosis calcification.

Decreasing outpatient cardiac catheterization rates associated with cardiology clinic volume but not with increasing cardiac computed tomography utilization.

Cardiac computed tomographic angiography (CTA) is an accurate noninvasive test for diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD). To investigate whether increasing use of CTA is correlated with left heart catheterization (LHC) rates, we performed a retrospective review of existing outpatient and inpatient catheterization lab and CTA electronic medical records from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2008. Comparing the previous 2 years (July 2004-June 2006) to the 2 years after addition of CTA (July 2006-June 2008), monthly LHC rates decreased 20 +/- 6% (p = 0.08) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) rates decreased 47 +/- 6% (p<0.001). Cardiology clinic volume declined 34%. CTA rates increased 64 +/- 7% (p<0.001). Radionuclide myocardial perfusion scan (MPS) usage remained stable. Despite increased utilization over the past 2 years, CTA was not correlated with significantly reduced LHC rates. The decline of outpatient LHC rates at our institution over 4 years is mainly influenced by decreasing outpatient Cardiology clinic volume.

International, multidisciplinary update of the 2006 Appropriateness Criteria for cardiac computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: A multi-society document outlining appropriateness criteria for cardiac CT (CCT) was published in 2006. Since then, CCT has experienced rapid growth in technologic advances and clinical use. We sought to reassess opinion about the appropriate use of CCT among an international group of experts in the field. METHODS: Seventy-two international experts in the field of CCT independently rated all 39 indications listed in the original 2006 appropriateness statement. Indications were classified as either "appropriate," "uncertain," or "inappropriate" based on an assessment of the clinical balance between risk and benefit to the patient in daily practice. Median rater scores were considered to represent current opinion for each indication and were compared with the original value in the 2006 document. RESULTS: Survey respondents averaged 5.8+/-4.1 years of CCT experience, with a median total of 1200 contrast-enhanced CCT examinations performed and interpreted. Cardiologists (40; 55.6%) and radiologists (32; 44.4%) were included. Five of 12 previously "uncertain" indications shifted to "appropriate," resulting in a total of 18 "appropriate" of 39 possible indications. Conversely, all previously "appropriate" indications remained so. Among the 14 previously "inappropriate" indications, 10 shifted to "uncertain," none to "appropriate." Overall, 26 of 39 indications showed increased appropriateness scores (range of shift, 1-4 points; median value, 1; interquartile range, 0-2). No significant differences were observed between US and non-US expert respondents or between cardiology and radiology respondents in the overall appropriateness category ratings. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the 2006 Appropriateness Criteria, opinion regarding clinical use of CCT has experienced a significant shift toward appropriateness across most indications, similarly judged among international cardiology and radiology experts in the field.