Background and objectives The recent joint ACCF/AHA clinical competence statement on cardiac imaging with multi-detector computed tomography recommended a minimum of 6 months training and 300 contrast examinations, of which the candidate must be directly involved in at least 100 studies. Whether this is adequate to become proficient in interpretation of coronary computed tomogsignificant coronary stenosis in a center with 1 year's experience using a 64-row scanner. Methods A total of 778 patients underwent contrast-enhanced CTA between January and December 2005. Out of these patients, 301 patients also underwent contrast-enhanced conventional coronary angiography (CCA). These patients were divided into 4 groups according to the time the examination was underwent. Group Q1: first quarter of the year (n=20), Group Q2: second quarter (n=128), Group Q3: third quarter (n=134), and Group Results The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were Q1 - 64%, 89%, 49% and 94%, respectively; Q2 -79%, 96%, 74% and 97%, respectively; Q3 - 78%, 96%, 74%, 97%, respectively, and Q4 - 100% for all. Conclusions In a center with formal training and high caseload, our accuracy in CTA analysis reached a plateau after 6 months experience. Test-bolus protocols produce better image quality and can improve accuracy. New centers embarking on CTA will need to overcome an initial 6-month learning curve depending upon the caseload during which time they should consider correlation with CCA.

Background Elderly patients generally have higher occurrence of coronary calcification, increased heart rate and difficulty with prolonged breath-holding. The aim of our study was to investigate the feasibility and accuracy of using 64-row multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) in the assessment of coronary artery stenoses in elderly patients. Methods One hundred and fifty two patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease were divided into 4 groups according to their age (Group A: 40-49 years,n=34; Group B: 50-59 years, n=57; Group C: 60-69 years, n=48; Group D: 70 years and above; n=13). Coronary CT angiography (CTA) using a 64-row MDCT was performed and the findings were compared with that of conventional coronary angiography (CCA).Using axial images, multi-planar reconstructions (MPR) and maximum intensity projections (MIP), coronary segments of lumen diameter = 1.5mm were analyzed for the presence of significant stenosis (= 50% ). Results Percentages of poor image quality from coronary CTA preventing reliable correlations with CCA were 21%, 14%, 19% and 62% in Groups A to D respectively. Patients in Group D had significantly higher calcium scores compared with the other groups (P＜0.001). In patients where CTA images were of acceptable quality, percentages of accurate correlations with CCA were 89.8%, 93.4%, 86.6% and 78.0% for Groups A to D respectively.There were no significant difference in serum creatinine, heart rate and contrast volume between the 4 groups. Conclusions The 64-row MDCT coronary angiography was less accurate and feasible for patients aged 70 years or above due to heavy coronary calcification and inability to perform a satisfactory breath-hold. However, a high diagnostic accuracy with the MDCT is possible in patients aged less than 70 years.

Objectives To compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) determined from 64-row multi-detector computed tomography (64-row MDCT) with those determined from two dimensional echocardiography (2D echo) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). Methods Thirty-two patients with coronary artery disease underwent trans-thoracic 2D echo, CMR and contrast-enhanced 64-row MDCT for assessment of LVEF within 48 hours of each other. 64-row MDCT LVEF was derived using the Syngo Circulation software; CMR LVEF was by Area Length Ejection Fraction (ALEF) and Simpson method and 2D echo LVEF by Simpson method.Results The LVEF was 49.13 ± 15.91% by 2D echo, 50.72 ± 16.55% (ALEF method) and 47.65 ± 16.58%(Simpson method) by CMR and 50.00 ± 15.93% by 64-row MDCT. LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured with CMR using either the ALEF method (Pearson correlation r = 0.94, P ＜0.01) or Simpson method (r = 0.92, P＜0.01). It also correlated well with LVEF measured using 2D echo (r = 0.80, P ＜ 0.01). Conclusion LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured by CMR and 2D echo. The correlation between 64-row MDCT and CMR was better than the correlation between 2D echo with CMR. Standard data set from a 64-row MDCT coronary study can be reliably used to calculate the LVEF.