Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography for Assesment of Stable Coronary Artery Disease – a Cost-effectiveness Perspective

1. Nasis A, Meredith I, Cameron D, Seneviratne S. Coronary computed tomography angiography for the assessment of chest pain: current status and future directions. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;31Suppl 2:125-143.10.1007/s10554-015-0698-726134159 Search in Google Scholar

2. J Ladapo JA, Blecker S, Douglas PS. Physician decision making and trends in the use of cardiac stress testing in the United States: an analysis of repeated cross-sectional data. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:482-490.10.7326/M14-0296433535525285541 Search in Google Scholar

3. Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S. ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the TaskForce on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2949-3003.10.1093/eurheartj/eht29623996286 Search in Google Scholar

4. Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, et al. Head-to-head comparison of coronary plaque evaluation between multislice computed tomography and intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:176-182.10.1016/j.jcin.2008.01.00719463297 Search in Google Scholar

5. Turchetti G, Kroes MA, Lorenzoni V, et al. The cost-effectiveness of diagnostic cardiac imaging for stable coronary artery disease. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15:625-633.10.1586/14737167.2015.105103726027879 Search in Google Scholar

6. Carrabba N, Migliorini A, Pradella S, et al. Old and New NICE Guidelines for the Evaluation of New OnsetStable Chest Pain: A Real World Perspective. Hindawi BioMed Research International. Volume 2018, Article ID 3762305, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3762305.10.1155/2018/3762305625001830533431 Search in Google Scholar

7. Mensah GA, Roth GA, Fuster V. The Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors: 2020 and Beyond. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:2529-2532.10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.00931727292 Search in Google Scholar

8. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:886e95.10.1056/NEJMoa0907272392059320220183 Search in Google Scholar

9. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:886-895.10.1056/NEJMoa0907272 Search in Google Scholar

10. Noto TJ Jr, Johnson LW, Krone R, et al. Cardiac catheterization 1990: a report of the registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCA&I). Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1991;24:75-83.10.1002/ccd.18102402021742788 Search in Google Scholar

11. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. Areport of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1756-1824.10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00126-6 Search in Google Scholar

12. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (assessment by coronary computed tomographic angiography of individuals undergoing invasive coronary angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1724e32.10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.03119007693 Search in Google Scholar

13. Fine JJ, Hopkins CB, Ruff N, et al. Comparison of accuracy of 64-slice cardiovascular computed tomography with coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:173e4.10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.08.02116442357 Search in Google Scholar

14. Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F, et al. Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:147e54.10.1016/j.accreview.2005.11.028 Search in Google Scholar

15. Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al. Accuracy of MSCT coronary angiography with 64-slice technology: first experience. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1482e7.10.1093/eurheartj/ehi26115840624 Search in Google Scholar

16. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CA, et al. High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation. 2005;112:2318e23.10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.53347116203914 Search in Google Scholar

17. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2324e36.10.1056/NEJMoa080657619038879 Search in Google Scholar

18. Meijboom WB, van Mieghem CA, Mollet NR, et al. 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with high, intermediate, or low pretest probability of significant coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1469e75.10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.00717919567 Search in Google Scholar

19. Ollendorf DA, Kuba M, Pearson SD. The diagnostic performance of multi-slice coronary computed tomographic angiography: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:307e16.10.1007/s11606-010-1556-x304319021063800 Search in Google Scholar

20. Duszak Jr R, Optican RJ, Brin KP, et al. Cardiac CT and coronary CTA: early medicare claims analysis of national and regional utilization and coverage. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8:549e55.10.1016/j.jacr.2010.12.02421807348 Search in Google Scholar

21. Douglas Ps, hoffmann U, Patel Mr, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1291-1300.10.1056/NEJMoa1415516 Search in Google Scholar

22. SCOT-HEART investigators. CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2383-2391.10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60291-4 Search in Google Scholar

23. Williams MC, Hunter A, Shah ASV, et al. Use of coronary computed tomographic angiography to guide Management of Patients With coronary Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:1759-1768.10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.026482970827081014 Search in Google Scholar

24. Maurovich-Horvat P, Ferencik M, Voros S, et al. Comprehensive plaque assessment by coronary CT angiography. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2014;11:390-402.10.1038/nrcardio.2014.6024755916 Search in Google Scholar

25. Harden S. BSCI / RCR / RCP Standards of practice of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in adult patients: British Society of Cardiovascular Imaging/British Society of Cardiac CT. Available at: http://www.bsci.org.uk Search in Google Scholar

26. Centonze M, Steidler S, Casagranda G, et al. Cardiac-CT and cardiac-MR cost-effectiveness: a literature review. Radiol Med. 2020;125:1200-1207.10.1007/s11547-020-01290-z32970273 Search in Google Scholar

27. Mushlin AI, Ghomrawi HM. Comparative effectiveness research:a cornerstone of healthcare reform? Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2010;121:141-154. Search in Google Scholar

28. Mushlin AI, Ghomrawi H. Health care reform and the need forcomparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:e6.10.1056/NEJMp091265120054035 Search in Google Scholar

29. Shaw LJ. Cost-effectiveness and future implications for cardiovascular imaging. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29:350-357.10.1016/j.cjca.2012.10.01723332968 Search in Google Scholar

30. Nasis A, Meredith I, Cameron J, Seneviratne S. Coronary computed tomography angiography for the assessmentof chest pain: current status and future directions. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;31:125-143.10.1007/s10554-015-0698-726134159 Search in Google Scholar

31. van Waardhuizen CN, Khanji MY, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of non-invasive imaging tests in patients presenting with chronic stable chest pain with suspected coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2016;2:245-260.10.1093/ehjqcco/qcw02929474724 Search in Google Scholar

32. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; American College of Physicians; American Association for Thoracic Surgery; Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:e44-e164. Search in Google Scholar

33. Napp AE, Haase R, Laule M, et al. Computed tomography versus invasive coronary angiography: design and methods of the pragmatic randomised multicentre DISCHARGE trial. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:2957-2968.10.1007/s00330-016-4620-z27864607 Search in Google Scholar

34. Skelly AC, Hashimoto R, Buckley DI, et al. Noninvasive Testing for Coronary Artery Disease [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016 Mar. (Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 171.) Executive Summary. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK361155/ Search in Google Scholar

35. Greenwood JP, Ripley DP, Berry C, et al. Effect of Care Guided by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy, or NICE Guidelines on Subsequent Unnecessary Angiography Rates: The CE-MARC 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;316:1051-1060.10.1001/jama.2016.1268027570866 Search in Google Scholar

36. Williams MC, Hunter A, Shah ASV, et al.Use of Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography to Guide Management of Patients With Coronary Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:1759-1768.10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.026482970827081014 Search in Google Scholar

37. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:886-895.10.1056/NEJMoa0907272392059320220183 Search in Google Scholar

38. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127:e6-e245. Search in Google Scholar

39. Bradley SM, Spertus JA, Kennedy KF, et al. Patient selection for diagnostic coronary angiography and hospital-level percutaneous coronary intervention appropriateness: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1630-1639.10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3904427641625156821 Search in Google Scholar

40. Bradley SM, Maddox TM, Stanislawski MA, et al. Normal coronary rates for elective angiography in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System: insights from the VA CART program (vet-erans affairs clinical assessment reporting and tracking). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:417-426.10.1016/j.jacc.2013.09.05524184244 Search in Google Scholar

41. Genders TSS, Meijboom WB, Meijs MFL, et al. CT coronary angiography in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease: decision making from various perspectives in the face of uncertainty. Radiology. 2009;253:734-744.10.1148/radiol.253309050719864509 Search in Google Scholar

42. Ladapo JA, Jaffer FA, Hoffmann U, et al. Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of coronary computed tomography angiography in the evaluation of patients with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:2409-2422.10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.01220082932 Search in Google Scholar

43. Min JK, Gilmore A, Budoff MJ, Berman DS, O’Day K. Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion SPECT for evaluation of patients with chest pain and no known coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2010;254:801-808.10.1148/radiol.0909034920177094 Search in Google Scholar

44. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991-1001.10.1056/NEJMoa120536122924638 Search in Google Scholar

45. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503-1516.10.1056/NEJMoa07082917387127 Search in Google Scholar

46. Young LH, Wackers FJ, Chyun DA, et al. Cardiac outcomes after screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: the DIAD study: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2009;301:1547-1555.10.1001/jama.2009.476 Search in Google Scholar

47. Muhlestein JB, Lappe DL, Lima JA, et al. Effect of screening for coronary artery disease using CT angiography on mortality and cardiac events in high-risk patients with diabetes: the FACTOR-64 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:2234-2243.10.1001/jama.2014.15825 Search in Google Scholar

48. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503-1516.10.1056/NEJMoa070829 Search in Google Scholar

49. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:2503-2515.10.1056/NEJMoa0805796 Search in Google Scholar

50. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367:991-1001.10.1056/NEJMoa1205361 Search in Google Scholar

51. Dewey M, Hamm B. Cost effectiveness of coronary angiography and calcium scoring using CT and stress MRI for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1301e9.10.1007/s00330-006-0439-3 Search in Google Scholar

52. Halpern EJ, Savage MP, Fischman DL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography in evaluation of patients without symptoms who have positive stress test results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1257e6210.2214/AJR.09.3209 Search in Google Scholar

53. Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1291-300.10.1056/NEJMoa1415516 Search in Google Scholar

54. SCOT-HEART investigators. CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2383-2391.10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60291-4 Search in Google Scholar

55. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1724e1732.10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.03119007693 Search in Google Scholar

56. Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:2135e2144. Search in Google Scholar

57. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2324e2336.10.1056/NEJMoa080657619038879 Search in Google Scholar

58. Neglia D, Rovai D, Caselli C, et al. Detection of significant coronary artery disease by noninvasive anatomical and functional imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8: e002179. Search in Google Scholar

59. Budoff MJ, Li D, Kazerooni EA, Thomas GS, Mieres JH, Shaw LJ. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive 64-row computed tomographic coronary angiography (CCTA) compared with myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI): the PICTURE study, a prospective multicenter trial. Acad Radiol. 2017;24:22e29.10.1016/j.acra.2016.09.00827771227 Search in Google Scholar

60. Dewey M, Rief M, Martus P, et al. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with atypical angina or chest pain clinically referred for invasive coronary angiography: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2016;355.i5441.10.1136/bmj.i5441507656727777234 Search in Google Scholar

61. Min JK, Dunning A, Lin FY, et al. Age- and sex-related differences in all-cause mortality risk based on coronary computed tomography angiography findings results from the International Multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: an International Multicenter Registry) of 23,854 patients without known coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:849e860. Search in Google Scholar

62. Villines TC, Hulten EA, Shaw LJ, et al. Prevalence and severity of coronary artery disease and adverse events among symptomatic patients with coronary artery calcification scores of zero undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography: results from the CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: an International Multicenter) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2533e2540. Search in Google Scholar

63. Small GR, Yam Y, Chen L, et al. Prognostic assessment of coronary artery bypass patients with 64-slice computed tomography angiography: anatomical information is incremental to clinical risk prediction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(23):2389e2395. Search in Google Scholar

64. Shaw LJ, Hausleiter J, Achenbach S, et al. Coronary computed tomographic angiography as a gatekeeper to invasive diagnostic and surgical procedures: results from the multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: an International Multicenter) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2103e2114. Search in Google Scholar

65. Hadamitzky M, Achenbach S, Al-Mallah M, et al. Optimized prognostic score for coronary computed tomographic angiography: results from the CONFIRM registry (COronary CT Angiography EvaluatioN for Clinical Outcomes: an InteRnational Multicenter Registry). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:468e476. Search in Google Scholar

66. Shaw LJ, Hausleiter J, Achenbach S, et al; CONFIRM Registry Investigators. Coronary computed tomographic angiography as a gatekeeper to invasive diagnostic and surgical procedures: results from the multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: an International Multicenter) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2103-2114.10.1016/j.jacc.2012.05.06223083780 Search in Google Scholar

67. Shaw LJ, Min JK, Budoff M, et al. Induced cardiovascular procedural costs and resource consumption patterns after coronary artery calcium screening: results from the EISNER (Early Identification of Subclinical Atherosclerosis by Noninvasive Imaging Research) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1258-12.10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.01819778667 Search in Google Scholar

68. Amemiya S, Takao H. Computed tomographic coronary angiography for diagnosing stable coronary artery disease: a cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ J. 2009;73:1263-1270.10.1253/circj.CJ-08-1186 Search in Google Scholar

69. Genders TS, Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, et al. CT coronary angiography in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease: decision making from various perspectives in the face of uncertainty. Radiology. 2009;253:734-744.10.1148/radiol.253309050719864509 Search in Google Scholar

70. Kreisz FP, Merlin T, Moss J, et al. The pre-test risk stratified cost-effectiveness of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in the detection of significant obstructive coronary artery disease in patients otherwise referred to invasive coronary angiography. Heart Lung Circ. 2009;18:200-207.10.1016/j.hlc.2008.10.01319250870 Search in Google Scholar

71. Min JK, Gilmore A, Budoff MJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion SPECT for evaluation of patients with chest pain and no known coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2010;254:801-808.10.1148/radiol.0909034920177094 Search in Google Scholar

72. Westwood M, Al M, Burgers L, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of new-generation computed tomography scanners for imaging in coronary artery disease and congenital heart disease: Somatom Definition Flash, Aquilion ONE, Brilliance iCT and Discovery CT750 HD. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1-243.10.3310/hta17090478112223463937 Search in Google Scholar

73. Litt HI, Gatsonis C, Snyder B,et al. CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1393-403.10.1056/NEJMoa120116322449295 Search in Google Scholar

74. Hoffmann U, Truong QA, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:299-308.10.1056/NEJMoa1201161366221722830462 Search in Google Scholar

75. Goldstein JA, Chinnaiyan KM, Abidov A, et al. The CT-STAT (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Systematic Triage of Acute Chest Pain Patients to Treatment) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1414-1422.10.1016/j.jacc.2011.03.06821939822 Search in Google Scholar

76. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of chronic. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz42510.1093/eurheartj/ehz42531504439 Search in Google Scholar

77. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: executive summary. J Am Coll Cardiol Immed Past Chair. 2012;60:44-164.10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.01323182125 Search in Google Scholar

78. Kelion AD, Nicol ED. The rationale for the primacy of coronary CT angiography in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline (CG95) for the investigation of chest pain of recent onset. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018;12:516-522.10.1016/j.jcct.2018.09.00130269897 Search in Google Scholar

79. OECD Health Statistics 2014 – Frequently Requested. Available at. https://www.oecd.org/els/health-statistics-2014-frequentlyre-quested-data.htm Search in Google Scholar

80. Slim AM, Jerome S, Blankstein R, et al. Healthcare Policy Statement on the Utility of Coronary Computed Tomography for Evaluation of Cardiovascular Conditions and Preventive Healthcare: From the Health Policy Working Group of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017;11:404-414.10.1016/j.jcct.2017.08.00828867495 Search in Google Scholar

81. Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, Walker S, Cook J, Jia X, Hillis GS, Fraser C. 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 Technol Assess. 2008;12:iii-iv.10.3310/hta1217018462576 Search in Google Scholar

82. Schuetz GM, Zacharopoulou NM, Schlattmann P, Dewey M. Meta-analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:167-177.10.7326/0003-4819-152-3-201002020-0000820124233 Search in Google Scholar

83. Khan R, Rawal S, Eisenberg MJ. Transitioning from 16-slice to 64-slice multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery disease: are we really making progress? Can J Cardiol. 2009;25:533-42. Search in Google Scholar

84. Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, Goldstein JA. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:552-557.10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.05616053973 Search in Google Scholar

85. Burgers LT, Redekop WK, Al MJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;18:731-742.10.1007/s10198-016-0824-z27650359 Search in Google Scholar