CT coronary angiography versus conventional invasive coronary angiography - the view of the referring physician

PURPOSE Assessment of experience gained by local referring physicians with the procedure of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in the everyday clinical routine. MATERIALS AND METHODS A 25-item questionnaire was sent to 179 physicians, who together had referred a total of 1986 patients for CCTA. They were asked about their experience to date with CCTA, the indications for coronary imaging, and their practice in referring patients for noninvasive CCTA or invasive catheter angiography. RESULTS 53 questionnaires (30 %) were assessable, corresponding to more than 72 % of the patients referred. Of the referring physicians who responded, 94 % saw a concrete advantage of CCTA in the treatment of patients, whereby 87 % were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the reporting. For excluding coronary heart disease (CHD) where there was a low pre-test probability of disease, the physicians considered CCTA to be superior to conventional coronary diagnosis (4.2 on a scale of 1 - 5) and vice versa for acute coronary syndrome (1.6 of 5). The main reasons for unsuitability of CCTA for CT diagnosis were claustrophobia and the absence of a sinus rhythm. The level of exposure to radiation in CCTA was estimated correctly by only 42 % of the referring physicians. 90 % of the physicians reported that their patients evaluated their coronary CT overall as 'positive' or 'neutral', while 87 % of the physicians whose patients had undergone both procedures reported that the patients had experienced CCTA as the less disagreeable of the two. CONCLUSION CCTA is accepted by the referring physicians as an alternative imaging procedure for the exclusion of CHD and received a predominantly positive assessment from both the referring physicians and the patients.