COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

CT Coronary Angiography vs. Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring for the Occupational Assessment of Military Aircrew.

INTRODUCTION: To ensure flight safety military aircrew undergo regular clinical and occupational assessment. Coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) has been established as an imaging modality to noninvasively assess coronary artery disease (CAD). CT coronary angiography (CTCA) potentially offers a more accurate assessment of CAD, but has not been formally assessed in military aircrew. This retrospective cohort study is designed to compare the theoretical differences in downstream investigations and occupational outcomes in aircrew with suspected CAD comparing CTCA with existing CACS pathways.

METHOD: A 2-yr retrospective cohort study of consecutive UK military patients who underwent a CTCA and CACS was undertaken. Patient demographics, CTCA and CACS results, and initial and final occupational restrictions were analyzed comparing current UK, Canadian, and U.S. pathways.

RESULTS: There were 44 patients who underwent CACS and CTCA. The commonest indication for a CTCA was a positive exercise ECG. Increasing CACS, stenosis severity, and stenosis burden were associated with significantly greater likelihood of occupational restriction (P = < 0.01). Following CTCA, 26/44 (59%) patients were found to have evidence of CAD, with 13/44 (30%) having at least a single vessel stenosis ≥50%. All of these patients had subsequent occupational restrictions. Two patients with a calcium score ≤10 had at least 1 single vessel stenosis ≥50%.

DISCUSSION: A CTCA pathway is potentially a better discriminator of CAD burden in aircrew when compared with CACS and may reduce downstream testing, allowing a more efficacious approach to CAD assessment in military aircrew.Parsons I, Pavitt C, Chamley R, d'Arcy J, Nicol E. CT coronary angiography vs. coronary artery calcium scoring for the occupational assessment of military aircrew. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2017; 88(2):76-81.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app