segunda-feira, setembro 24, 2007
Stress versus CoronarioCT na dor torácica.
A LUTA CONTINUA, QUAL EXAME E PARA QUEM?
The interest in clinical use of MDTC for coronary artery disease detection has been overinflated in the last few years, driven by equipment vendors for obvious, nonscientific reasons, as is typical for any new technology. MDCT is able to show nice-looking pictures of the coronaries, and a negative scan can approximate 100% of negative predictive power for coronary artery disease, but when used in chest pain units, the information it adds is trivial in comparison with low-cost, well-established imaging modalities.
In fact, stress echocardiography has demonstrated exceptionally high negative predictive power in multicenter studies with large samples, such as the Stress Pharmacological Echocardiography in Emergency Department (SPEED) trial,2 with negative predictive power of 98.8% for all cardiovascular events and 99.6% for "hard" cardiovascular events. Conversely, a positive MDCT scan (presence of >50% coronary stenosis) often presents a diagnostic dilemma in that MDCT is not able to address the functional significance of a stenosis. In case of a positive result, a stress test becomes mandatory before or after diagnostic coronary angiography, making the initial MDCT scan once again redundant ("a costly picture").
Even more important, patient radiation exposure tends to be understated or "forgotten" in clinical studies and in clinical practice. This exposure represents a serious downside to this imaging modality, with the 10 to 20 mSv exposure dose of the scan corresponding to 1 new (fatal or nonfatal) cancer for every 1000 to 500 scans, according to the latest estimate of the authoritative Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Seventh Committee, released in 2005 from the US National Research Council.3
So what is the role of MDCT scanning in the chest pain unit? Do we need a 1% gain in negative predictive power (from 99% to 100%) paid for by radiation exposure and unbelievably higher financial costs? Long-term risks should be included in the risk–benefit assessment of our procedures
Nicola Gaibazzi. Circulation. 2007;116:e354
Precisa de ajuda no inglês? Aqui