Q:
What do you see is the major role for CT
angiography -- is it mainly in the area of heart
disease? Some say it's going to replace invasive catheterization.
Dr. Achenbach: I think that you're absolutely right. I mean
the role of CT, currently the major focus
is imaging
of the coronary arteries. There are a few other things we can
do, but the major focus is the coronary arteries.
And what coronary CT angiography can do very well, if it's
done carefully, it can very accurately rule out the presence
of coronary stenosis. If a CT scan is normal, of good quality
and normal, then you can be very certain that the patient does
not have coronary stenosis. And I think that's the main application
-- to use it instead of an invasive angiogram, when the patient
is symptomatic, or has some other findings that point to the
possibility of coronary artery stenosis being present, but,
as a physician, you consider the likelihood that the patient
really has the disease is not very high -- you kind of have
the feeling that the patient should have an invasive angiogram,
but you expect it probably to be normal. In these situations,
the CT angiogram is extremely useful, and I think that's currently
the main application. Using it to avoid invasive angiography
in patients who might have coronary stenosis, but the likelihood
is relatively low.
Q: Some
physicians, like Dr. Ralph Brindis of Kaiser Permanente in
California, have expressed
concern that CT angiography may lead to many more procedures
being done on people who don't really need them.
Dr. Achenbach:
I think there are very valid concerns out there
that need to be addressed, and it's good to be somewhat careful
about a new technique to avoid overuse, especially in the
beginning. On the other hand, we should not be overly critical,
and prevent a good method from being used clinically.
I think there are two ways
in which CT can be
not too
useful. First of all, if it is performed
on people who don't need it. If you take a completely asymptomatic
person walking around on the street, and you do a CT angio
on them, well there is a certain likelihood, it's low but
it's possible, that you'll find a stenosis. And then there
is an
almost automatic reflex that, if you see a stenosis, that
you send a patient to the cath lab, and then in the cath lab
the
stenosis is treated. But if the patient had no symptoms ever
to begin with, and the stenosis is, let’s say in the left
circumflex coronary artery, then treatment of that stenosis
doesn't
help the patient at all. So it's true, if CT angio is performed
in patients who are completely asymptomatic, and really don't
need any coronary diagnostics, there is a danger that you'll
find lesions that should never have been found, and you send
them for treatment which was not necessary. That's one aspect,
that it's performed in the wrong kind of people.
The other
aspect, and I think that might be at least of the same
magnitude, and that's if the CT is not performed well.
You know, CT
of
the heart is relatively stable, but it can be difficult
in some instances, and also if the technology that you use
is
not adequate, it's even more difficult. And if you don't
perform it well, if there are artifacts in the data set, then
usually
what happens is that you see stenoses that are not really
there. A CT scan of low quality is usually false positive,
and not
false negative. So that happens a lot, that if a CT scan
is performed, maybe not absolutely expertly, and then the
person
who reads it might not be, you know, super-experienced,
and what happens is that they start feeling a little insecure,
and they call a stenosis that is not actually there,
and the
patient
ends up in the cath lab, and the cath lab shows that the
CT was false positive, and that a stenosis is not present.
So
these are the two things that can happen. That's why
it's important to have people well-trained in cardiac
CT, to use the right equipment, and to also make sure that
they don't scan patients that should not be scanned.
Q: What can be done to rectify
these situations -- obviously, better training...
Dr. Achenbach: Well, there are many things going on. There
are now the guidelines for competency. Level 1, level 2,
level 3 guidelines for
competency, for what you should have done in order to perform
a cardiac
CT scan. I would say that these are minimum requirements,
but they do guarantee a certain level of expertise before
somebody
does a cardiac CT -- these have been published
by the ACC and AHA, and they call for basically 150 scans
interpreted
for the level 2 competency, which means that you are able
to perform and interpret your own CT scans. I think that's
rather
reasonable.
People who want to do CT,
they just have to go out there and pay attention that they
get good training. If they take a course,
that
its a good course with real experts teaching it. In the
end, I think, probably it's
going to control itself a little bit. If somebody runs
a CT business or a cardiac CT lab and the results that
are
produced are not good, then the referring physicians will
probably turn somewhere else after a while.
Q: Equipment is changing
quite rapidly. Just a few years ago, the best was a 16 slice
-- now there's 64 slice, and on the horizon is 256
slice,
or dual source. Can you speak
to the technology advancing, here?
Dr. Achenbach: I think
definitely the technology is advancing all the time. And
we will continue
to see improvements that will immediately translate into
clinical benefits. I think we have seen a major improvement
going from
16 to 64 slice CT. With a 16 slice CT it's possible to do
coronary CT angiography, but it's not easy. You really have
to know
what you're doing, you really have to scan very carefully.
With a 64 slice CT, it became easier. It's really, now, universally
do-able, with a 64 slice CT, if patients are prepared well.
There's still the prerequisite that the heart
rate has to
be low -- you should pre-medicate patients
with
a heart rate of more than 60, to lower it. That really improves
the images a lot. But with a 64 slice CT you can do clinical
CT angiography of the coronary arteries with stable results,
and that's what's moved the scanning of
the coronary arteries into clinical practice. And there are
continuous
improvements beyond 64 slice CT. The dual-source CT has
been available for about one-and-a-half years now, and it
has been
able to show that scanning of higher heart rates is possible,
quite reliably. The 256 slice is out, installed, in prototypes
only. But, what I hear, between the lines, is that the overall
scan time is shortened quite a bit, to just 1.5 or 2 seconds.
But I would say, if you have a 64 slice CT, you're already
pretty
good, equipped for coronary CT angio.
Q: One of the big concerns from
the standpoint of patients, and
also referring physicians, is the radiation dose. And I
know a lot of work has been done to reduce that, both in the
equipment
and also in the techniques used.
Dr. Achenbach: That's a valid concern,
and it depends a lot on the expertise of the person who performs
the scan, You have to use all options that you can to lower
the radiation
dose to a reasonable limit. If no attention is paid to
radiation dose, the doses can be extremely high, 20 milliseverts
or
more. But this will be avoided if care
is taken to keep the
radiation dose in a reasonable range. You can probably
perform a 64 slice CT routinely between 5 and 10 milliseverts.
And,
there are even new developments on the horizon, I wouldn't
say they are standard yet, that you might go below 5 milliseverts.
I think 5 to 10 is very reasonably achievable, and that compares
favorably
with
other
tests. For example, nuclear perfusion tests have the same
order of magnitude, cardiac cath might be a little less,
3 to 5 milliseverts,
but it's the same order of magnitude.
Q: Some of the concern is why
do a CT angiogram if there's a good likelihood
that the
patient's
going to need a regular, invasive angiogram and perhaps
a procedure,
like an angioplasty, at the same time?
Dr. Achenbach: I would
absolutely agree. We are all clinicians, and often
enough you have
a patient in which we are certain, or 95% certain, that
the patient has coronary stenosis. In that case, I would
not do a CT angiogram. In that case I would go maybe
for stress testing or the cath lab immediately. If you
know
that
the patient has disease, the patient doesn't need a CT
scan.
Q: There's some research on
performing perfusion studies using
CT -- do you think CT may replace nuclear testing?
Dr. Achenbach:
I think that it will be potentially be an alternative to
a nuclear test. I don't think it will replace the nuclear
test,
because there is so much-- such a large database on nuclear
scanning. I mean, if you perform a nuclear radiation perfusion
scan, and you have it resolved, then you'll know exactly
what it means, you have millions of patients for reference.
It's
so well established and so well embedded in cardiology, for
patients who just purely need a stress test just to test
for ischemia -- the nuclear perfusion scan
is not
going to go away.
There is the option, however, of adding
on a CT angiogram plus perfusion scan in one test, and I
think
that might be a reasonable thing to do in the future. Not at
the moment, but in the future, to have a more comprehensive
test for the patient. It's in research
phases.
I mean there are a handful of papers, and each one has a
handful of patients. It's too early.
Q:
What about imaging stents with CT to see if there's
been a reblockage, in-stent restenosis?
Dr. Achenbach: I
think that there's
not a good answer, because that's exactly at the point right
now, where we're going from "it's not possible" to "tt's
probably possible." But I would still not say that it’s a
routine clinical indication to scan a patient who has a stent,
because stents,
with the dense metal that they contain, they can create artifacts
very easily, and out of my own experience I can say that
it's extremely difficult, and often enough impossible, to
determine
whether there is an in-stent restenosis, because of the artifacts
caused by the stents. So I am a little
bit on the cautious side, I know it. But I currently
do not recommend scanning
patients who have implanted stents. There might be exceptions
-- if a patient has a very large stent. The larger the stent,
the larger the diameter, the easier it is to see inside.
We are
seeing some publications now, there was just a publication
of about 35 patients from
Turkey, there was another publication of about 115 patients,
I think, from the Netherlands, and they both saw relatively
good results. Sensitivities way more than 90% to detect
in-stent restenosis, but there are only very few publications.
And then there are others, who have substantially lower
accuracies.
So, I think we still have to learn, and I would currently
be
reluctant to recommend CT scanning in stent patients, because
the likelihood that you won't be able to read it with confidence
is just too high. I might change my opinion two years from
now -- I don't know -- but currently I would not consider
this a routine application. Q: How can a patient know whether
they're going to the right place? Whether the person, the
physician
or the company doing the CT scan is going to have a high
level, and is there a difference in the specialties? I know
radiologists
do them, cardiologists do them. Do you have any recommendations
there?
Dr. Achenbach: Well, I think volume is important.
Whatever you do a lot, you'll do well. So I definitely
think
the volume is important -- that's
one criteria that you should look out for. How do you assess
volume? Well, probably they will not tell
you exactly that they've performed so many CT scans per year,
but
I think a large center does about a thousand scans per year.
So I would not go to a place that has performed 2 of these
tests a month. And also, if the center has one
person who is dedicated to cardiac CT -- I know in many centers
in the States there’s like one physician who does cardiac
CT all day, and that's probably a sign of
quality, because if you do it all day, you'll have the experience,
the expertise, to do this well.
Whether it's a cardiologist
or a radiologist? I wouldn't say that matters. Both
can perform it if the volume is high enough, and if they
are adequately
trained. Then, of course, you have to look for equipment.
And a very experienced person can probably do cardiac CT
quite
well with a 16 slice CT, but usually, I would look at least
for a 64 slice CT.
Q: Finally, there's been some discussion
that Cardiac CT is going to be able to show the kind of soft,
thin-capped plaque, sometimes called "vulnerable plaque".
Is that something currently feasible?
Dr. Achenbach: There is increasing discussion about
the
use of coronary angiography, a contrast-enhanced scan,
to find
plaque: small, atherosclerotic deposits do not cause stenosis
at the moment, but they might cause myocardial infarctions
somewhere down the line. Traditionally, this has been done
through the calcium scan, but now with the better quality
of the scanners, and the contrast-enhanced images, this
also allows us to detect non-calcified portions of the plaque.
And I
know
that many physicians are extremely enthusiastic about this,
using this for risk stratification. Doing a CT angiogram
in asymptomatics who have risk factors, to determine how
high
is their risk of myocardial infarction. And again, there's
lots of discussion about this, and some are doing it --
I personally am very reluctant because I think there's
not
enough data out
there at the moment to support this application.
This interview was conducted
in June 2007 by Burt Cohen of Angioplasty.Org. |
|