A considerable number of patients present at the emergency department with acute chest pain complaints [1–7]. In these patients the accurate diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains clinically challenging. More than 60% of patients with chest pain who are admitted to the hospital do not turn out to have ACS, emphasizing the need to improve the early triage of patients with acute chest pain. In general, triage is based on the initial clinical assessment including an electrocardiogram (ECG), serial serum markers measurements, echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) [8–19]. While management is relatively straightforward in case of ECG changes and elevated serum markers, a considerable number of patients presents with both serum markers and an ECG that are either within normal limits or inconclusive. Recently, noninvasive visualization of the coronary arteries has become possible with computed tomography (CT) techniques. Both electron beam CT (EBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) allow assessment of coronary calcium burden as a marker of coronary artery disease (CAD). More recently, noninvasive coronary angiography can also be performed, for which MSCT in particular is increasingly used [20–27]. Potentially these techniques are useful in the clinical work-up of patients presenting with suspected ACS. Haberl et al. [28] showed that MSCT was powerful enough to act as a filter before invasive angiography; in 133 symptomatic patients with suspected CAD, MSCT angiography, but not calcium scoring alone, the number of invasive angiography procedures was reduced by up to one-third with minimal risk for the patient. Olivetti et al. [29] showed in 31 patients reporting chest pain with a medium to low probability of ACS that the MSCT technique can rule out significant coronary stenoses provided that image quality is excellent. In patients with a medium to low coronary risk, MSCT proved to be a more accurate indicator of the need for coronary angiography than exercise stress testing, which is less expensive but has lower predictive values, emphasizing that MSCT has a high negative predictive value for exclusion of coronary artery stenoses. Goldstein et al. [30] compared the safety, diagnostic efficacy, and efficiency of MSCT with standard diagnostic evaluation of low-risk acute chest pain patients. The authors randomized patients to MSCT (n = 99) versus standard care (n = 98) protocols. Both approaches were completely safe. MSCT alone immediately excluded or identified coronary disease as the source of chest pain in 75% of patients, including 67 with normal coronary arteries and 8 with severe disease referred for invasive evaluation. The remaining 25% of patients required stress testing, owing to intermediate severity lesions or non-diagnostic scans. MSCT evaluation reduced diagnostic time compared with standard care (3.4 vs. 15.0 h, P < 0.001) and lowered costs. It was concluded that MSCT coronary angiography can definitively establish or exclude coronary disease as the cause of chest pain. However, inability to determine the physiological significance of intermediate severity coronary lesions and cases with inadequate image quality are present limitations. Rubinshtein et al. [31] found that 64-slice cardiac MSCT is a potentially valuable diagnostic tool in emergency department patients with chest pain of uncertain origin, providing early direct noninvasive visualization of coronary anatomy. MSCT had high positive predictive value (>95%) for diagnosing ACS, whereas a negative MSCT study predicted a low rate of major adverse cardiovascular events and favorable outcome during follow-up. Consequently, MSCT-based detection of significant coronary stenoses has tremendous potential to decrease the number of unnecessary hospital admissions, without reducing appropriate admission rates, in patients with chest pain who have non-diagnostic ECG results and normal cardiac enzymes. In 22 patients with ACS, Schuijf et al. [32] showed that significantly less calcifications were present as compared to observations in patients with stable CAD. Moreover, even in non-culprit vessels, multiple non-calcified plaques were detected, indicating diffuse rather than focal atherosclerosis in patients with ACS. Compared to other noninvasive imaging techniques, Gallagher et al. [33] showed that the accuracy of MSCT was at least as good as that of stress nuclear imaging for the detection and exclusion of an acute coronary syndrome in low-risk chest pain patients. Boussel et al. [34] recently demonstrated that delayed-enhanced MSCT allowed differentiation between myocardial infarction and myocarditis with the same accuracy at acute phase compared with CMR.
In the present issue of the International Journal of cardiovascular imaging, Lee et al. [35] showed in a review article that major life-threatening causes of acute chest pain (i.e. acute aortic syndrome and pulmonary embolism as well as ACS) can simultaneously be assessed by the so-called ‘triple rule-out’ protocol with a single CT scan. In patients with acute chest pain and low to intermediate risk, the triple rule-out protocol may be preferred, especially in older patients who have relatively lower risk of lifelong radiation-induced cancer. However, the increased radiation dose resulting from the extended volume coverage with this protocol should be fully considered prior to performing this protocol. Therefore, in emergency department patients who have a low clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism and acute aortic syndrome, especially younger patients, dedicated coronary CT angiography accompanied by modifications to reduce radiation dose is recommended.
The use of triple rule-out protocol has been reported in several studies [36–40]. In a previous study from the same group [35], it was already demonstrated that MSCT appeared to be logistically feasible and showed promise as a comprehensive method for evaluating cardiac and noncardiac chest pain in stable emergency department patients [36]. Haidary et al. [37] showed that the triple rule-out 64-slice biphasic injection breath-hold CT angiography protocol provided significantly higher attenuation of aortic and pulmonary vasculature compared with our current 10- and 16-slice protocols. Rogg et al. [38] used the triple rule-out protocol and concluded that a significant number of emergency department patients who are evaluated for at least one of these three major chest pain syndromes received simultaneous testing for one of the other syndromes. Takakuwa and Halpern [39] demonstrated that triple rule-out coronary CT angiography of low to-moderate risk ACS patients presenting to the emergency department provided a noncoronary diagnosis that explained the presenting complaint in 11% of patients, suggested the presence of significant moderate-to-severe coronary disease in 11% (22 of 197) of patients, and precluded additional diagnostic cardiac testing in the majority of patients with no adverse outcomes at 30 day follow-up. It should however, be realized that the triple rule-out protocol differs from dedicated coronary CT angiography in several important aspects such as the larger field of view with the triple rule-out protocol, imaging of the entire length of the thorax, and the delivery of additional contrast, resulting in increased radiation burden to the patient.
In conclusion, the high negative predictive value (>95%) found in the above-mentioned studies suggests that CT coronary angiography is an attractive option for exclusion of CAD in properly selected emergency department patients with acute chest pain. CT angiography is a well-established and accurate tool for the diagnosis of acute aortic dissection and pulmonary embolism. Recent technical developments now permit acquisition of well-opacified images of the coronary arteries, thoracic aorta and pulmonary arteries from a single CT scan. While ‘triple rule-out’ acquisition protocol can potentially exclude fatal causes of chest pain in all three vascular beds, the attendant higher radiation dose of this method precludes its routine use except when there is sufficient support for the diagnosis of either aortic dissection or pulmonary embolism [40]. Furthermore, the protocol is yet not fully optimized to exclude acute aortic syndrome or to assess the full extent of aortic dissection into the abdomen and beyond. These observations are also underscored by the NASCI-ESCR position paper on the use of MSCT Imaging for the Assessment of Acute Chest Pain, questioning the true clinical need for a triple rule-out protocol [41]. In the majority of patients a single rule-out protocol will do, and—unless there is a high index of suspicion for acute aortic syndrome or pulmonary embolism—the triple rule-out protocol should be avoided. Currently there are no large prospective studies where MSCT has been used for this purpose and further research is therefore desirable to better define the role for triple rule-out coronary CT angiography. So the triple rule-out protocol is still far from three of a kind.
References
Schuijf JD, Jukema JW, van der Wall EE, Bax JJ (2007) Multi-slice computed tomography in the evaluation of patients with acute chest pain. Acute Card Care 9:214–221
van Werkhoven JM, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW et al (2008) Anatomic correlates of a normal perfusion scan using 64-slice computed tomographic coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol 101:404–405
Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, Jukema JW et al (2007) Prognostic value of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:62–70
Schuijf JD, Pundziute G, Jukema JW et al (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice multislice computed tomography in the noninvasive evaluation of significant coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 98:145–148
Schuijf JD, Wijns W, Jukema JW et al (2006) Relationship between noninvasive coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography and myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:2508–2514
Jongbloed MR, Lamb HJ, Bax JJ et al (2005) Noninvasive visualization of the cardiac venous system using multislice computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:749–753
Achenbach S, Ropers D, Pohle FK et al (2004) The use of CTA in the chest pain center: a perspective. Crit Pathw Cardiol 2004:87–93
Bax JJ, Lamb H, Dibbets P et al (2000) Comparison of gated single-photon emission computed tomography with magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of left ventricular function in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 86:1299–1305
Langerak SE, Vliegen HW, de Roos A et al (2002) Detection of vein graft disease using high-resolution magnetic resonance angiography. Circulation 105:328–333
van der Wall EE, Heidendal GA, den Hollander W, Westera G, Roos JP (1980) I-123 labeled hexadecenoic acid in comparison with thallium-201 for myocardial imaging in coronary heart disease. A preliminary study. Eur J Nucl Med 5:401–405
van Rugge FP, Holman ER, van der Wall EE, de Roos A, van der Laarse A, Bruschke AV (1993) Quantitation of global and regional left ventricular function by cine magnetic resonance imaging during dobutamine stress in normal human subjects. Eur Heart J 14:456–463
Tulevski II, Hirsch A, Sanson BJ et al (2001) Increased brain natriuretic peptide as a marker for right ventricular dysfunction in acute pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost 86:1193–1196
Braun S, van der Wall EE, Emanuelsson S, Kobrin I (1996) Effects of a new calcium antagonist, mibefradil (Ro 40–5967), on silent ischemia in patients with stable chronic angina pectoris: a multicenter placebo-controlled study. The mibefradil international study group. J Am Coll Cardiol 27:317–322
van Lennep JE, Westerveld HT, van Lennep HW, Zwinderman AH, Erkelens DW, van der Wall EE (2000) Apolipoprotein concentrations during treatment and recurrent coronary artery disease events. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 20:2408–2413
Bavelaar-Croon CD, Kayser HW, van der Wall EE et al (2000) Left ventricular function: correlation of quantitative gated SPECT and MR imaging over a wide range of values. Radiology 217:572–575
Bavelaar-Croon CD, Pauwels EK, van der Wall EE (2001) Gated single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial imaging: a new tool in clinical cardiology. Am Heart J 141:383–390
Molhoek SG, Bax JJ, Bleeker GB et al (2004) Comparison of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with sinus rhythm versus chronic atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol 94:1506–1509
van der Wall EE, van Dijkman PR, de Roos A et al (1990) Diagnostic significance of gadolinium-DTPA (diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid) enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in thrombolytic treatment for acute myocardial infarction: its potential in assessing reperfusion. Br Heart J 63:12–17
van Dijkman PR, van der Wall EE, de Roos A et al (1991) Acute, subacute, and chronic myocardial infarction: quantitative analysis of gadolinium-enhanced MR images. Radiology 180:147–151
Juwana YB, Wirianta J, Suryapranata H, de Boer MJ (2007) Left main coronary artery stenosis undetected by 64-slice computed tomography: a word of caution. Neth Heart J 15:255–256
Schuijf JD, Bax JJ, van der Wall EE (2007) Anatomical and functional imaging techniques: basically similar or fundamentally different? Neth Heart J 15:43–44
Wijpkema JS, Dorgelo J, Willems TP et al (2007) Discordance between anatomical and functional coronary stenosis severity. Neth Heart J 15:5–11
van de Wal RM, van Werkum JW, le Cocq d’Armandville MC et al (2007) Giant aneurysm of an aortocoronary venous bypass graft compressing the right ventricle. Neth Heart J 15:252–254
de Leeuw JG, Wardeh A, Sramek A, van der Wall EE (2007) Pseudo-aortic dissection after primary PCI. Neth Heart J 15:265–266
ten Kate GJ, Wuestink AC, de Feyter PJ (2008) Coronary artery anomalies detected by MSCT-angiography in the adult. Neth Heart J 16:369–375
Henneman MM, Schuijf JD, Pundziute G et al (2008) Noninvasive evaluation with multislice computed tomography in suspected acute coronary syndrome: plaque morphology on multislice computed tomography versus coronary calcium score. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:216–222
Hoffmann U, Nagurney JT, Moselewski F et al (2006) Coronary multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of patients with acute chest pain. Circulation 114:2251–2260
Haberl R, Tittus J, Böhme E et al (2005) Multislice spiral computed tomographic angiography of coronary arteries in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: an effective filter before catheter angiography? Am Heart J 149:1112–1119
Olivetti L, Mazza G, Volpi D, Costa F, Ferrari O, Pirelli S (2006) Multislice CT in emergency room management of patients with chest pain and medium-low probability of acute coronary syndrome. Radiol Med (Torino) 111:1054–1063
Goldstein JA, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, Ross MA, O’Neil BJ, Raff GL (2007) A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:863–871
Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T (2007) Usefulness of 64-slice cardiac computed tomographic angiography for diagnosing acute coronary syndromes and predicting clinical outcome in emergency department patients with chest pain of uncertain origin. Circulation 115:1762–1768
Schuijf JD, Beck T, Burgstahler C et al (2007) Differences in plaque composition and distribution in stable coronary artery disease versus acute coronary syndromes; non-invasive evaluation with multi-slice computed tomography. Acute Card Care 9:48–53
Gallagher MJ, Ross MA, Raff GL, Goldstein JA, O’Neill WW, O’Neil B (2007) The diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography compared with stress nuclear imaging in emergency department low-risk chest pain patients. Ann Emerg Med 49:125–136
Boussel L, Gamondes D, Staat P, Elicker BM, Revel D, Douek P (2008) Acute chest pain with normal coronary angiogram: role of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography in the differential diagnosis between myocarditis and myocardial infarction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:228–232
Lee HY, Yoo SM, White CS (2008) Coronary CT angiography in emergency department patients with acute chest pain: triple rule-out protocol versus dedicated coronary CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:10.1007/s10554-008-9375-4
White CS, Kuo D, Kelemen M et al (2005) Chest pain evaluation in the emergency department: can MDCT provide a comprehensive evaluation? AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:533–540
Haidary A, Bis K, Vrachliotis T, Kosuri R, Balasubramaniam M (2007) Enhancement performance of a 64-slice triple rule-out protocol vs 16-slice and 10-slice multidetector CT-angiography protocols for evaluation of aortic and pulmonary vasculature. J Comput Assist Tomogr 231:917–923
Rogg JG, Neve JW, Huang C et al. (2008) The triple work-up for emergency department patients with acute chest pain: how often does it occur?. J Emerg Med [Epub ahead of print]
Takakuwa KM, Halpern EJ (2008) Evaluation of a “triple rule-out” coronary CT angiography protocol: use of 64-section CT in low to-moderate risk emergency department patients suspected of having acute coronary syndrome. Radiology 248:438–446
Gallagher MJ, Raff GL (2008) Use of multislice CT for the evaluation of emergency room patients with chest pain: the so-called “triple rule-out”. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 71:92–99
Stillman AE, Oudkerk M, Ackerman M et al (2007) Use of multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of acute chest pain: a consensus statement of the North American society of cardiac imaging and the European society of cardiac radiology. Eur Radiol 17:2196–2207
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
van der Wall, E.E., Schuijf, J.D. & Bax, J.J. Triple rule-out CT coronary angiography: three of a kind?. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 25, 327–330 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-008-9381-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-008-9381-6