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.

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Treating Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a promising therapy for non-neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction and might also be a valuable option in patients with an underlying neurological disorder. OBJECTIVE We systematically reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy and safety of TENS for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS After screening 1943 articles, 22 studies (two randomised controlled trials, 14 prospective cohort studies, five retrospective case series, and one case report) enrolling 450 patients were included. Eleven studies reported on acute TENS and 11 on chronic TENS. In acute TENS and chronic TENS, the mean increase of maximum cystometric capacity ranged from 69ml to 163ml and from 4ml to 156ml, the mean change of bladder volume at first detrusor overactivity from a decrease of 13ml to an increase of 175ml and from an increase of 10ml to 120ml, a mean decrease of maximum detrusor pressure at first detrusor overactivity from 18 cmH20 to 72 cmH20 and 8 cmH20, and a mean decrease of maximum storage detrusor pressure from 20 cmH20 to 58 cmH2O and from 3 cmH20 to 8 cmH2O, respectively. In chronic TENS, a mean decrease in the number of voids and leakages per 24h ranged from 1 to 3 and from 0 to 4, a mean increase of maximum flow rate from 2ml/s to 7ml/s, and a mean change of postvoid residual from an increase of 26ml to a decrease of 85ml. No TENS-related serious adverse events have been reported. Risk of bias and confounding was high in most studies. CONCLUSIONS Although preliminary data suggest TENS might be effective and safe for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, the evidence base is poor and more reliable data from well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to make definitive conclusions. PATIENT SUMMARY Early data suggest that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation might be effective and safe for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, but more reliable evidence is required.