|
|
May
25, 2005
Image-Makers
Does MultiSlice Computed Tomography, or
MSCT, have the potential to change how patients get selected for
interventional treatment of coronary artery disease? You bet (and
several companies are). A study in today's
JAMA reports that 84% of the patients studied who did not
have significant disease could have been screened out using
MSCT instead of the more invasive coronary angiography (commonly
known as a "cath") -- a very common procedure (over two
million done in the U.S. annually) which, while safe and relatively
low-risk, still involves threading a catheter into the heart from
an incision in the thigh or wrist, and has a complication rate
of 1.8%.
The current standard pathway to the cath lab starts with
EKGs and/or an ultrasound stress test, then possibly a thallium stress
test (with radiation tracking) and finally a cardiac catheterization, currently
the "gold standard" of diagnosis for coronary narrowing. The
cardiologist can see clearly where and how significant the narrowing is,
and will often treat the blockage on-the-spot by sliding in a balloon and
stent through the catheter already in place, adding only 15-20 minutes
to the diagnostic procedure and, voila! Artery opened.
But what about the patients who get to the cath lab and
find there is no blockage (in this study, they constituted 44% of the sample)?
They've undergone a somewhat uncomfortable and expensive procedure and
have subjected themselves to the possibility of a 1.8% chance of complications
(arrhythmia, stroke, coronary artery dissection, access site bleeding,
trauma to the femoral artery and nerves). Not a lot, but it is if you're
the patient who experiences one....
Additionally MSCT is rapidly increasing in quality. The
JAMA study was done with a Brilliance
16 unit from Philips Medical Systems. But Philips, as well as GE Healthcare,
Siemens and Toshiba have already developed 40 and 64 slice units that surpass
the one used in the study, and the authors concluded that "With rapidly
improving technology, MSCT may well evolve from a useful complement to
invasive angiography to a clinically viable alternative" -- MSCT may
actually rival catheterization in diagnostic accuracy (in fact, the MSCT
scans actually reveal information about the calcification of the plaque
that is not seen under fluoroscopic angiography).
This means less invasive diagnosis for patients, lower
healthcare costs for hospitals. The new units cost between $1-2 million,
but scans are about $700 -- a catheterization costs 5-10 times that. Two
millions caths a year in the U.S. Do the math.
|
|
|