Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coronary CT Angiography: Evaluation of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts

  • Chapter
Imaging Coronary Arteries

  • 2385 Accesses

Abstract

Coronary revascularization, comprising coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), is among the most common major medical procedures provided by the US health care system, with more than 1 million procedures performed annually [1, 2]. Several innovations in coronary revascularization, such as drug-eluting stents, minimally invasive CABG surgery, and “off-pump” CABG surgery, have been adopted widely in the past decade, with the promise of improved clinical outcomes compared with older revascularization technologies and techniques [3, 4]. However, with the advent of PCI and the increased efficacy of medical therapy, a constant decrease in the number of CABG procedures has been steadily observed in the USA. Nonetheless, the results of the recent SYNTAX trial indicated that CABG surgery remains the better choice for coronary revascularization among patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease [5–7].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. DeFrances CJ, Lucas CA, Vuie VC, Golosinskiy A (2008) 2006 National Hospital Discharge Survey. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics

    Google Scholar 

  2. Epstein AJ, Polsky D, Yang Fet al (2011) Coronary revascularization trends in the united state, 2001-2008. JAMA 305:1769–1776

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP et al (2009) Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 360(10):961–972

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW et al (2009) ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization J Am Coll Cardiol 53:530–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G et al (2005) Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med 352:2174–2183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Myers WO, Blackstone EH, Davis K et al (1999) CASS Registry long-term surgical survival. Coronary artery surgery study. J Am Coll Cardiol 33:488–498

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldman S, Zadina K, Moritz T et al (2004) Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery by-pass surgery: results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:2149–2156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones CM, Chin KY, Yang GZ et al. Coronary artery bypass graft imaging with 64-slice multislice computed tomography: literature review. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2008;29:204–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Marano R, Liguori C, Rinaldi P et al (2007) Coronary artery bypass grats and MDCT imaging: what to know and what to look for. Eur Radiol 17:3166–3178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Calafiore AM, Di Giammarco G, Teodori G et al (1996) Left anterior descending coronary artery grafting via left anterior small thoracotothoracotomy without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 61:1658–1663

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM et al (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/ NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:1864–1894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Malagutti 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 28:1879–1885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pache G, Saueressig U, Frydrychowicz A et al (2006) Initial experience with 64-slice cardiac CT: non-invasive visualization of coronary artery bypass grafts. Eur Heart J 27:976–980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ropers D, Pohle FK, Kuettner A et al (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography in patients after bypass surgery using 64-slice spiral computed tomography with 330-ms gantry rotation. Circulation 114:2334–2341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dikkers R, Willems TP, Tio RA et al (2006) The benefit of 64-MDCT prior to invasive coronary angiography in symptomatic post-CABG patients. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 23:369–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jabara R, Chronos N, Klein L et al (2007) Comparison of multidetector 64-slice computed tomographic angiography to coronary angiography to assess the patency of coronary artery bypass grafts. Am J Cardiol 99:1529–1534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Feuchtner GM, Schachner T, Bonatti J, Friedrich GJ et al (2007) Diagnostic performance of 64-slice computed tomography in evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafts. Am J Roentgenol 189:574–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Meyer TS, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M et al (2007) Improved non-invasive assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts with 64-slice computed tomographic angiography in an unselected patient population. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:946–950

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nazeri I, Shahabi P, Tehrai M, Sharif-Kashani et al (2009) Assessment of patients after coronary artery bypass grafting using 64-slice computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 103:667–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Weustink AC, Nieman K, Pugliese F, Mollet NR et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography angiography in patients after bypass grafting. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2:816–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee JH, Chun EJ, Choi SI et al (2011) Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography for evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft patency: comparison of image quality, radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 27:657–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Graaf FR, van Velzen JE, Witkowska AJ, Schuijf JD et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of 320-slice multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur Radiol 21:2285–2296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, Walker S et al (2008) Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technology Assessment 17

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hamon M, Lepage O, Malagutti P, Riddel J et al (2008) Diagnostic Performance of 16-and 64-Section Spiral CT for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Assessment: Meta-Analysis. Radiology 247:679–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Khan R, Rawal S, Eisenberg MJ (2009) Transitioning from 16-slice multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery disease: are we really making progress? Can J Cardiol 9:533–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dunlay SM, Rihal CS, Sundt TM et al (2009) Current trends in coronary revascularization. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 11:61–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Türkvatan A, Biyikoglu, Büyükbayraktar FG, Cumhur T et al (2009) Noninvasive evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft and native coronary arteries: is 16-slice multidetector CT useful? Diagn Interv Radiol 15:43–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Andreini D, Pontone G, Ballerini G, Bertella E et al (2007) Bypass graft and native postanastomotic coronary artery patency: assessment with computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 83:1672–1678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chow BJW, Ahmed O, Small G et al (2011) Prognostic value of CT angiography in coronary bypass patients. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 5:496–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bedi HS, Gill JAS, Bakshi SS (2008) Can we perform coronary artery bypass grafting on the basis of computed tomography angiography alone? A comparison with conventional coronary angiography. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 33:633–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Maluenda G, Goldstein MA, Lemesle G, Weissman G et al (2010) Perioperative outcomes in reoperative cardiac surgery guided by cardiac multidetector computed tomography angiography. Am Heart J 159:301–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gasparovic H, Rybicki FJ, Millstine J et al (2005) Three-dimensional computed tomography imaging in planning the surgical approach for redo cardiac surgery after coronary revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 28:244–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kamdar AR, Meadows TA, Rosselli EE et al (2008) Multidetector computed tomography angiography in planning of reoperative cardiothoracic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 85:1239–1245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Plass A et al (2006) Accuracy of MSCT coronary angiography with 64-slice technology: first experience. Eur Heart J 26:1482–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wintersperger BJ, Nikolaou K, von Ziegler F et al (2006) Image quality, motion artifacts, and reconstruction timing of 64-slice coronary computed tomography angiography with 0.33-second rotation speed. Invest Radiol 41:436–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Leschka S, Wildermuth S, Boehm T et al (2006) Noninvasive coronary angiography with 64-section CT: effect of average heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality. Radiology 241:378–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Achenbach S, Ropers D, Kuettner A et al (2006) Contrast-enhanced coronary artery visualization by dual-source computed tomography-initial experience. Eur J Radiol 57:331–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bastarrika G, De Cecco CN, Arraiza M et al (2008) Dual-source CT for visualization of the coronary arteries in heart transplant patients with high heart rates. Am J Roentgenol 191:448–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A et al (2006) Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: First experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol 16:2739–2747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Seifarth H, Raupach R, Schaller S et al (2005) Assessment of coronary artery stents using 16-slice MDCT angiography: evaluation of a dedicated reconstruction kernel and a noise reduction filter. Eur Radiol 15:721–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schoepf UJ, Zwerner PL, Savino G et al (2007) Coronary CT angiography. Radiology 244:48–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Busch S, Johnson TR, Wintersperger BJ et al (2008) Quantitative assessment of left ventricular function with dual-source CT in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: initial findings. Eur Radiol 18:570–575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Thilo C, Hanley M, Bastarrika G et al (2010) Integrative computed tomographic imaging of cardiac structure, function, perfusion, and viability. Cardiol Rev 18:219–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bastarrika G, Ramos-Duran L, Rosenblum MA et al (2010) Adenosine-stress dynamic myocardial CT perfusion imaging: initial clinical experience. Invest Radiol 45:306–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiological Sciences Oncology and Pathology, University of Rome “La Sapienza” Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy

    Carlo Nicola De Cecco

Authors
  1. Carlo Nicola De Cecco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gorka Bastarrika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Rengo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Nicola De Cecco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Atlantic Medical Imaging, Galloway, NJ, USA

    David A. Dowe (Coronary CTA Program Director) (Coronary CTA Program Director)

  2. Casa di Cura Mater Dei, Rome, Italy

    Massimo Fioranelli (Head of Heart Center, Scientific Director of the Centro Studi in Scienze della Vita) (Head of Heart Center, Scientific Director of the Centro Studi in Scienze della Vita)

  3. “Guglielmo Marconi” University, Rome, Italy

    Massimo Fioranelli (Head of Heart Center, Scientific Director of the Centro Studi in Scienze della Vita) (Head of Heart Center, Scientific Director of the Centro Studi in Scienze della Vita)

  4. Radiology Department, Casa di Cura Mater Dei, Rome, Italy

    Paolo Pavone

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Cecco, C.N., Bastarrika, G., Rengo, M. (2013). Coronary CT Angiography: Evaluation of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts. In: Dowe, D.A., Fioranelli, M., Pavone, P. (eds) Imaging Coronary Arteries. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2682-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2682-7_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2681-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2682-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation