Medical Policy


Subject:Coronary Artery Imaging: Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA)
Policy #:  RAD.00035Current Effective Date:  04/16/2008
Status:RevisedLast Review Date:  02/21/2008

Description/Scope

This document addresses the cardiac applications of contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the coronary arteries and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the coronary arteries. 

Note: This document does not address the use of electron beam computed tomography (EBCT) to quantify coronary calcification, which is addressed in RAD.00001 Computed Tomography to Detect Coronary Artery Calcification.  

 For further information regarding the use of CTA/MRA imaging for additional indications, refer to:

Policy Statement

Medically Necessary:

Contrast-enhanced cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA) is considered medically necessary for the evaluation of suspected anomalous coronary arteries when conventional angiography has been unsuccessful or has provided equivocal results and the results could impact treatment.

Investigational and Not Medically Necessary:

Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the coronary arteries is considered investigational and not medically necessary for all other indications, including, but not limited to, the following:

  • Screening for coronary artery disease (CAD), either in asymptomatic subjects or as part of a preoperative evaluation;
  • Diagnosis of CAD, in patients with acute or non-acute symptoms, or after a coronary intervention;
  • As a technique to evaluate cardiac function.

Cardiac magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for the evaluation of coronary arteries is considered investigational and not medically necessary for all indications.

Rationale

A 2006 TEC Assessment was completed to determine the usefulness of CTA as a substitute for coronary angiography for two indications: for determining the diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis and in the evaluation of acute chest pain in the emergency room setting.  Seven studies compared CTA to angiography for the diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis, ranging in size from 30 to 84 patients, all of whom were scheduled to undergo angiography.  No study specifically addressed a lower risk subgroup, which has been suggested as the target population for this testing.  The sensitivity of CTA in identifying a 50% stenosis ranged from 88-100% with four of five studies reporting sensitivities of at least 95%.  Specificity ranged from 86-100%.  In a per-segment (not per patient) analysis, sensitivity ranged from 79-99% and specificity ranged from 95-98%.  Four of the seven studies excluded either patients or segments from the analysis.  Two studies evaluated the use of CTA for patients with acute chest pain in the ER; (sample sizes were 31 and 69).  No alternative strategies for diagnosis were evaluated in these studies, and the sensitivity of CTA was reported as 83% and 96%.  These studies evaluating use of CTA in comparison to angiography are relatively small from single centers.  Since these studies enrolled patients being referred for angiography, the results may not generalize to lower risk populations.  Due to the limitations of the reviewed studies, the TEC Assessment found that CTA as a substitute for coronary angiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis and CTA in the evaluation of acute chest pain in the emergency room setting did not meet the TEC criteria.  These findings are consistent with a prior 2005 TEC Assessment of CTA for Screening or Diagnostic Evaluation of the Coronary Arteries.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) commissioned the Duke Center for Clinical Health Policy Research Evidence-based Practice Center to perform a preliminary evaluation of the available scientific evidence on direct non-invasive imaging tests (NITs) for coronary artery disease.  The specific focus of this report was CTA and MRA in the evaluation of native coronary arteries, as well as new non-invasive imaging technologies on the horizon. Published literature related to non-invasive coronary imaging tests was reviewed, based on extant systematic reviews and was limited to articles published in English in the years 2005 and 2006.  Twenty-nine studies were identified using 16-slice or greater multi-detector computed tomography and 13 studies using magnetic resonance angiography for the evaluation of coronary arteries.  The preliminary findings noted that currently available evidence is limited regarding the test performance of CTA and MRA in identifying, quantifying or otherwise characterizing coronary artery stenoses.  In these studies, patients providing suboptimal images were often excluded from calculations of test accuracy.  Studies conducted to date primarily used patients having a high pre-test probability of coronary artery disease.  As such, future work is needed to examine test performance in larger, less selected populations representing the clinical settings in which these tests are actually expected to be used.            

In 2006, the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group published Appropriateness Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Hendel, 2006). This ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR Report took a consensus approach to the evaluation of test performance of these technologies by purpose and within specific clinical scenarios.

The opinion of the ACC Appropriateness Criteria supported the use of CTA, as appropriate, in the evaluation of suspected anomalous coronary arteries.  This is supported further by small case series that have reported that CTA is able to delineate the course of these anomalous arteries, even when conventional angiography may not (Berbarie, 2006; Datta, 2005; Schmitt, 2005; Chandran, 2005).  However, these case series did not report results when the initial reason for the CTA was to identify these anomalies.  Thus, this use of CTA is considered medically necessary when conventional angiography has been non-diagnostic.

In addition, the 2006 ACC Appropriateness Criteria suggested that CTA was appropriate for use in the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) in selected clinical settings.  Specifically it was viewed as appropriate in symptomatic patients with an intermediate probability of CAD when the EKG is uninterpretable, or in the evaluation of chest pain syndrome with uninterpretable or equivocal stress tests.  Finally, it was rated as appropriate for the evaluation of coronary arteries in those with new onset heart failure to assess etiology.  However, as previously noted, the studies for use of this test in these settings do not provide sufficient information to permit conclusions regarding the use of CTA in these specific cardiac applications.  As previously noted, this document was a consensus statement of the panel members.   

In 2006, a scientific statement was published from the American Heart Association (AHA) Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology entitled, Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease by Cardiac Computed Tomography (Budoff, 2006).  Within this position paper, the AHA provided two Class IIa* recommendations for the use of CTA, as follows:

"CT coronary angiography is reasonable for the assessment of obstructive disease in symptomatic patients." (AHA Level of Evidence: B***)  and

"…the high resolution…and the speed of image acquisition make it reasonable to use CT as one of the first choice imaging modalities in the workup of known and suspected coronary anomalies."  (AHA Level of Evidence: C****)

When discussing CT angiography in a clinical context, the AHA paper states:

"In a clinical context, the high negative predictive value may be useful in obviating the need for invasive coronary angiography in patients whose symptoms or abnormal stress test results make it necessary to rule out the presence of coronary artery stenoses.  Especially if symptoms, age, and gender suggest a low to intermediate probability of hemodynamically relevant stenoses, ruling out hemodynamically relevant stenoses by CT coronary angiography may be clinically useful and may help avoid invasive angiography…Use of CT angiography in asymptomatic persons as a screening test for atherosclerosis is not recommended."  (Class III**; AHA Level of Evidence: C****)

However, while the AHA makes the aforementioned recommendations, it further notes the following:

"Especially in the context of ruling out stenosis in patients with low to intermediate pretest likelihood of disease, CT coronary angiography may develop into a clinically useful tool.  However, the studies that have evaluated the accuracy of electron beam computed tomography (EBCT) and multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) for the assessment of coronary artery stenoses have been relatively small.  They recruited somewhat selected patients (e.g., excluding patients with acute coronary syndromes or atrial fibrillation), and all studies have been validated against invasive coronary angiography as a gold standard.  No outcomes-based analyses that made further clinical management dependent on the EBCT or MDCT results have been published.

Note:  According to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/European Society of Cardiology (ACC/AHA/ESC) guideline recommendations documents, the following are the definitions of Classifications of Recommendations and Levels of Evidence, as expressed in the ACC/AHA/ESC format:

Class I:     Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is         beneficial, useful, and effective.

Class II: Conditions for which there is conflicting evidence and/or divergence of opinion about the   usefulness/efficacy of a procedure or treatment.

*Class IIa: Weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy.

Class IIb:   Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion.

**Class III:Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful.  (Budoff, 2006)

Level of Evidence A: Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses.

***Level of Evidence B: Data derived from a single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies.

****Level of Evidence C: Only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard-of-care.

Since the publication of the TEC Assessment, AHRQ Evaluation and ACC Appropriateness Criteria and AHA Recommendations, there have been multiple additional case series published regarding the use of CTA in the setting of CAD, some reporting results using newer 64-slice scanning equipment.  This imaging is often referred to as multislice computed tomography (MSCT) or multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).  While there have been improvements in temporal resolution and spatial resolution with this equipment, the visualization of the vessels remains impacted by many factors, including the calcification of the vessel, heart rate, and presence of arrhythmias.  In addition, the studies themselves suffer from the same methodological issues as previous reports on this technology.  They tend to be on selected patient groups who were undergoing coronary angiography, are not randomized, and do not account for patients or vessels removed from the analysis, due to inability to interpret studies and also do not report health outcomes. 

There is continued interest in the use of CTA as an imaging technique for the evaluation of chest pain in the emergency room setting. It has been suggested that the negative predictive value of this test, in patients with symptoms not felt to have an acute coronary syndrome, is of value in avoiding additional testing.  Hayes, Inc. performed an assessment of this topic and assigned a 'B' rating* to the use of 16- and 64-slice CT, as a triage tool for eliminating CAD as a cause of symptoms in adult patients who have no known history of CAD and who are at low to intermediate risk of CAD.  However, in 2007, Goldstein and colleagues reported on a randomized study of 197 patients who presented to the ER with chest pain who were felt to have a low risk of infarction and/or complications based on clinical factors.  Ninety eight (98) were randomized to be evaluated with MSCT with 64-slice technology, and 97 were evaluated with nuclear stress testing.  Patients were followed for six months, and no deaths, myocardial infarctions or other major adverse events were reported in either group.  The number of cardiac catheterizations at six months was not significantly different, but was higher in the MSCT group (12% vs 7%).  The MSCT scans were considered inadequate in 24 of the 99 patients who underwent nuclear stress testing.    

Note:  According to the Hayes, Inc. Rating System, the ratings are scaled from A through D reflecting the strength and direction of the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of a medical technology, its impact on health outcomes, indications for use, patient selection criteria, and comparison with other technologies. The ratings are defined as follows:

A Established benefit. Use of the technology is supported by a high level of positive published evidence regarding safety and efficacy for the cited application(s). Drugs, biologics, and devices with an A rating have FDA approval, but not necessarily for the specific clinical application.

*B Some proven benefit. Use of the technology is supported by a moderate level of positive published evidence regarding safety and efficacy for the cited application(s). Further research is required to fully clarify clinical indications, contraindications, treatment parameters, comparison with other technologies, and/or impact on health outcomes. Drugs, biologics, and devices with a B rating have FDA approval, but not necessarily for the specific clinical application.

C Potential but unproven benefit. Use of the technology is supported by some positive published data regarding safety and/or efficacy for the cited application(s), but a beneficial impact on health outcomes has not been proven for one of two reasons: (1) Data are sparse and the level of evidence is low, or (2) Data are inconsistent or conflicting. 

D No proven benefit and/or not safe. This rating conveys one of two conclusions: (1) Use of the technology has been shown to be unsafe and/or there is no evidence in the current scientific literature that its use improves health outcomes; or (2) The research regarding use of the technology is so limited that an appraisal of safety and efficacy cannot be made.  (Hayes, 2007)

Currently the use of CTA for the evaluation of suspected anomalous coronary arteries is considered medically necessary when the results of conventional testing have been inconclusive/equivocal and when this testing will impact treatment planning, consistent with the AHA statement above.  Regarding use of CTA in the diagnostic workup of coronary artery disease in symptomatic patients, the current evidence is insufficient to support this application.

Although CTA provides high-resolution images, it also poses some potential risks.  The radiation exposure associated with CTA imaging greatly exceeds that of coronary angiography, from 4 to 21.4 milliSieverts (mSv).  In fact, a conservative estimate of 8 mSv for a typical multislice CT scan is 400 times the radiation dose of one chest x-ray. This radiation dose places CT scans at an intermediate (1–10 mSv) to moderate (10 mSv) level of risk under international guidelines, a risk level for which the corresponding benefit should be "moderate" to "substantial." Einstein and colleagues (2007) reported that their "Simulation models suggest that use of 64-slice CTCA is associated with a non-negligible LAR (lifetime attributable risk) of cancer" and that the risk is "Considerably greater for women, younger patients and for combined cardiac and aortic scans." Like coronary angiography, CTA also presents the risk of renal damage from the use of nephrotoxic contrast agents and of complications from the use of medicines to slow the heart rate to obtain a usable image.

There is very little published data currently available regarding the use of MRA for cardiac applications, such as the evaluation of coronary artery disease.  Further studies are needed to investigate both CTA and MRA, as compared with conventional diagnostic alternatives, to determine specific patient selection criteria and to demonstrate how results will impact patient management and health outcomes.

Background/Overview

Description of Computed Tomographic Angiography (CTA)
Contrast enhanced cardiac CTA has been proposed as a noninvasive alternative to invasive coronary angiography, particularly in patients with a low probability of significant coronary artery stenosis.  In other circumstances, CTA may be proposed instead of, or in addition to, other noninvasive cardiac tests.  The information from CTA may be used to guide further diagnostic evaluations and/or appropriate therapy, (e.g., revascularization versus medical management), and this may, over the long-term, influence the morbidity of CAD, (e.g., angina or subsequent MI rate), functional status, or mortality. 

Computed tomographic angiography, or CTA, is a noninvasive imaging test that requires the use of intravenously administered contrast material and high-resolution, high-speed CT machinery (multi-detector row scanner) to obtain detailed volumetric images of blood vessels.

Description of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA)
MRA of the coronaries involves the use of traditional MRI technology while a gadolinium-based contrast agent is injected intravenously during image acquisition.  This technique does not involve radiation exposure, and the contrast agent, at the dose used for MRA, is not considered nephrotoxic.  MRA provides detailed images of blood vessels and is currently being investigated as a noninvasive alternative diagnostic modality.

Definitions

CAD:  coronary artery disease

Computed tomography angiography: (CTA) a non-invasive radiological imaging technique that utilizes iodinated contrast agents followed by rapid imaging with a multi-detector row scanner, in order to acquire images of the heart and blood vessels

Coronary arteries:  the blood vessels supplying blood to the heart

Magnetic resonance angiography: (MRA) a non-invasive radiological imaging technique that utilizes traditional MRI technology to provide detailed images of blood vessels

Coding

The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this policy are included below for informational purposes.  Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member's contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage or these services as it applies to an individual member.

When services may be Medically Necessary when criteria are met:

CPT

 

0146T

Computed tomography, heart, with contrast material(s), including noncontrast images if performed, cardiac gating and 3D image post processing; computed tomographic angiography of coronary arteries (including native and anomalous coronary arteries, coronary bypass grafts), without quantitative evaluation of coronary calcium

0147T

Computed tomography, heart, with contrast material(s), including noncontrast images if performed, cardiac gating and 3D image postprocessing; computed tomographic angiography of coronary arteries (including native and anomalous coronary arteries, coronary bypass grafts), with quantitative evaluation of coronary calcium

0148T

Computed tomography, heart, with contrast material(s), including noncontrast images if performed, cardiac gating and 3D image post processing; cardiac structure and morphology and computed tomographic angiography of coronary arteries (including native and anomalous coronary arteries, coronary bypass grafts), without quantitative evaluation of coronary calcium

0149T

Computed tomography, heart, with contrast material(s), including noncontrast images if performed, cardiac gating and 3D image post processing; cardiac structure and morphology and computed tomographic angiography of coronary arteries (including native and anomalous coronary arteries, coronary bypass grafts), with quantitative evaluation of coronary calcium

 

 

ICD-9 Diagnosis

746.85

Coronary artery anomaly

786.50-786.59

Chest pain

V81.2

Special screening for other and unspecified cardiovascular conditions

When services are Investigational and Not Medically Necessary:
For the procedure codes listed above, when criteria are not met, for all other diagnoses, or when the code describes a procedure indicated in the Policy section as investigational and not medically necessary.

When services are also Investigational and Not Medically Necessary:

CPT

 

 

No specific code for cardiac magnetic resonance angioangraphy

 

 

ICD-9 Diagnosis

 

All diagnoses

 

References

Peer Reviewed Publications:

  1. Achenbach S Detection of coronary stenoses by multidetector computed tomography: it's all about resolution.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43(5):840-841.
  2. Achenback S, Daniel WG. Editorial Comment: Computed tomography of the coronary arteries. More than meets the (angiographic) eye. JACC. 2005; 46(1):155-157.
  3. Achenbach S, Ropers D, Pohle FK, et al.  Detection of coronary artery stenoses using multi-detector CT with 16 x 0.75 collimation and 375 ms rotation.  Europ Heart J. 2005; 26:1978-1986.
  4. Andreini D, Pontone G, Pepi M, Ballerini G, Bartorelli AL, Magini A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49(20):2044-2050.
  5. Berbarie RF, Dockery WK, Johnson KB, et al. Use of multislice computed tomographic coronary angiography for the diagnosis of anomalous coronary arteries.  Am J Cardiol. 2006; 98:402-406.
  6. Brodoefel H, Reimann A, Burgstahler C, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography in an unselected patient collective: Effect of heart rate, heart rate variability and coronary calcifications on image quality and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Radiol. 2007; [Epub ahead of print].
  7. Budoff MJ, Gopal A, Gul KM, et al. Prevalence of obstructive coronary artery disease in an outpatient cardiac CT angiography environment. International Journal of Cardiology. 2007 Jul 23; [Epub ahead of print].  Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez. Accessed on January 17, 2008.
  8. Bunce NH, Lorenz CH, Keegan J, et al.  Coronary artery anomalies: assessment with free-breathing three-dimensional coronary MR angiography.  Radiology.  2003; 227:201-208.
  9. Cademartiri F, Mollet NR, Lemos PA, et al. Impact of coronary calcium score on diagnostic accuracy for the detection of significant coronary stenosis with multislice computed tomography angiography. Am J Cardiol. 2005; 95:1225-1227.
  10. Chandran A, Fricker FJ, Schowengerdt KO, et al. An institutional review of the value of computed tomographic angiography in the diagnosis of congenital cardiac malformations.  Cardiol Young. 2005; 15(1):47-51.
  11. Cordeiro MAS, Mill JM, Schmidt A, et al.  Noninvasive half millimeter 32 detector row computed tomography angiography accurately excludes significant stenoses in patients with advanced coronary artery disease and high calcium scores.  Heart. 2006; 92:589-597.
  12. Datta J, White CS, Gilkeson RC, et al. Anomalous coronary arteries in adults: depiction at multi-detector row CT angiography.  Radiology. 2005; 235:812-818.
  13. Deibler AR, Kuzo RS, Vohringer M, et al. Imaging of congenital coronary anomalies with multislice computed tomography.  Mayo Clin Proc. 2004; 79(8):1017-1023.
  14. Dewey M, Teige F, Schnapauff D, et al.  Noninvasive detection of coronary artery stenoses with multislice computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.  Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145:407-415.
  15. Dirksen MS, Jukema JW, Bax JJ, et al.  Cardiac multidetector-row computed tomography in patients with unstable angina. Am J Cardiol. 2005; 95:457-461.
  16. Ehara M, Surmely J, Kawai M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography for detecting angiographically significant coronary artery stenosis in an unselected consecutive patient population. Circ J. 2006; 70:564–571.
  17. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007; 298(3):317-323.
  18. Fayad ZA, Fuster V, Nikolaou K, et al.  Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for noninvasive coronary angiography and plaque imaging - current and potential future concepts.  Circulation. 2002; 106: 2026-2034.
  19. 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; 97:173-174.
  20. Francone M, Napoli A, Carbone I, et al. Noninvasive imaging of the coronary arteries using a 64-row multidetector CT scanner: initial clinical experience and radiation dose concerns. Radiol Med. 2007; 112:31–46.
  21. Gallagher MJ, Ross MA, Raff GL, et al.  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. 2007; 49:125-136.
  22. Garcia MJ, Lessick J, Hoffmann MH, et al. Accuracy of 16-row multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stenosis.  JAMA. 2006; 296(4):403-411.
  23. Goldstein JA, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, et al. A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49(8):863-871.
  24. Greenland P. Editorial: Who is a candidate for noninvasive coronary angiography? Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145:466-467.
  25. Hamon M, Morello R, Riddell JW, et al. Coronary arteries: diagnostic performance of 16- versus 64-section spiral CT compared with invasive coronary angiography meta-analysis. Radiology. 2007a. (in press)
  26. Hamon M, Champ-Rigot L, Morello R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of in-stent coronary restenosis detection with multislice spiral computed tomography: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2007b. (in press)
  27. Hoffmann MHK, Shi H, Manzke R, et al.  Noninvasive coronary angiography with 16-detector row CT: effect of heart rate.  Radiology. 2005; 234:86-97.
  28. Hoffmann U, Nagurney JT, Moselewski F, et al. Coronary multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of patients with acute chest pain. Circ. 2006; October 30:114(18).  Published on line at: http://www.circulationaha.org.  Accessed on January 14, 2008.
  29. Hong C, Chrysant GS, Woodard PK, et al.  Coronary artery stent patency assessed with in-stent contrast enhancement measured at multi-detector row CT angiography: initial experience.  Radiology. 2004; 233:286-291.
  30. Inoue F, Sato Y, Matsumoto N, et al.  Evaluation of plaque texture by means of multislice computed tomography in patients with acute coronary syndrome and stable angina.  Circ J. 2004; 68(9):840-844.
  31. Janne d'Othee B, Siebert U, Cury R, et al. A systematic review on diagnostic accuracy of CT-based detection of significant coronary artery disease. European Journal of Radiology, 2007; in Press.
  32. Jones CM, Athanasiou T, Dunne N, et al. Multi-detector computed tomography in coronary artery bypass graft assessment: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 83(1):341-348.
  33. Kuettner A, Beck T, Drosch T et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary imaging using 16-detector slice spiral computed tomography with 188 ms temporal resolution.  J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45(1):123-127.
  34. Kuettner A, Trabold T, Schroeder S, et al.  Noninvasive detection of coronary lesions using 16-detector multislice spiral computed tomography technology-initial clinical results.  J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44(6):1230-1237.
  35. Leber AW, Knez A, Becker A, et al.  Accuracy of multidetector spiral computed tomography in identifying and differentiating the composition of coronary atherosclerotic plaques - a comparative study with intracoronary ultrasound.   J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43:1241-1247.
  36. Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al. Accuracy of MSCT coronary angiography with 64-slice technology: first experience.  Europ Heart J. 2005; 26:1482-1487.
  37. Martuscelli E, Romagnoli A, D'Eliseo A, et al.  Accuracy of thin-slice computed tomography in the detection of coronary stenoses.  Eur Heart J. 2004; 25:1043-1048.
  38. Meijboom WB, Mollet NR, Van Mieghem AG, et al.  Preoperative computed tomography coronary angiography to detect significant coronary artery disease in patients referred for cardiac valve surgery.  JACC. 2006; 48(8):1658-1665.
  39. Meijboom WB, Mollet NR, Van Mieghem CA, et al. 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Heart. 2007 (online);doi:10.1136/hrt.2006.112771.
  40. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, Krestin GP,  et al.  Improved diagnostic accuracy with 16-row multi-slice computed tomography coronary angiography.  J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45(1):128-132.
  41. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, Nieman K, et al.  Multislice spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris.  J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43(12):2265-2270.
  42. Mollet NR, Hoye A, Lemos PA, et al.  Value of preprocedure multislice computed tomographic coronary angiography to predict the outcome of percutaneous recanalization of chronic total occlusions.  Am J Cardiol. 2005; 95:240-243.
  43. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CAG, et al.  High resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography.  Circ.  2005; 112:2318-2323.
  44. Mollet NR, Cademartiri1 F, Mieghem CV, et al. Adjunctive value of CT coronary angiography in the diagnostic work-up of patients with typical angina pectoris. European Heart Journal. 2007; 28:1872–1878.
  45. Nakanishi T, Ido K, Imazu M, et al.  Evaluation of coronary artery stenoses using electron-beam CT and multiplanar reformation.  J Comp Assist Tomogr. 1997; 21(1):121-127.
  46. Nieman K, Cademartiri F, Lemos PA, et al.  Reliable noninvasive coronary angiography with fast submillimeter multislice spiral computed tomography.  Circulation. 2002; 106:2051-2054.
  47. Nikolaou K, Knez A, Rist C, et al.  Accuracy of 64-MDCT in the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease.  AJR. 2006; 187:111-117.
  48. Ropers D, Baum U, Pohle K, et al.  Detection of coronary artery stenoses with thin-slice multi-detector row spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction.  Circulation. 2003 ;107:664-666.
  49. Ropers D, Rixe J, Anders K, et al.  Usefulness of multidetector row spiral computed tomography with 64- x 0.6-mm collimation and 330-ms rotation for the noninvasive detection of significant coronary artery stenoses. Am J Cardiol. 2006; 97:343-348.
  50. Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T, et al. 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. 2007a; 115(13):1762-1768.
  51. Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T, et al. Usefulness of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic triage of patients with chest pain and negative or nondiagnostic exercise treadmill test result. Am J Cardiol. 2007b; 99(7):925-929.
  52. Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T, et al. Impact of 64-slice cardiac computed tomographic angiography on clinical decision-making in emergency department patients with chest pain of possible myocardial ischemic origin. Am J Cardiol. 2007c; 100(10):1522-1526.
  53. Schlosser T, Mohrs OK, Magedanz A, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-detector-row computed tomography in patients with a low to moderate pretest probability of significant coronary artery disease. Acta Radiol. 2007; 48(3):300-307.
  54. Schmitt R, Froehner S, Brunn J, et al. Congenital anomalies of the coronary arteries: imaging with contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography.  Eur Radiol. 2005; 15:1110-1121.
  55. Schoenhagen P, Halliburton SS, Stillman AE, et al.  Noninvasive imaging of coronary arteries: current and future role of multi-detector row CT.  Radiology. 2004; 232(1):7-17.
  56. Schuijf JD, Bax JJ, Jukema JW, Lamb HJ, et al.  Noninvasive evaluation of the coronary arteries with multislice computed tomography in hypertensive patients.  Hypertension. 2005; 45:1-6.
  57. Shabestari AA, Abdi S, Akhlaghpoor S, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-channel multislice computed tomography in assessment of significant coronary artery disease in symptomatic subjects. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99(12):1656-1661.
  58. Shi H, Aschoff AJ, Brambs HJ, et al.  Multislice CT imaging of anomalous coronary arteries.  Eur Radiol. 2004; 14:2172-2181.
  59. So NM, Lam WW, Li D, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography of coronary arteries with a 3-dimensional magnetization-prepared true fast imaging with steady-state precision sequence compared with conventional coronary angiography.  Am Heart J. 2005; 150(3):530-535.Stein PD, Beemath A, Kayali F, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review. American Journal of Medicine. 2006; 119:203-216.
  60. Sun Z, Jiang W. Diagnostic value of multislice computed tomography angiography in coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2006; 60(2):279-286.
  61. Vanhoenacker PK, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Van Heste R, et al. Diagnostic performance of multidetector CT angiography for assessment of coronary artery disease: meta-analysis. Radiology. 2007; 244(2):419-428.
  62. Vliegen HW, Doornbos J, de Roos A, et al.  Value of fast gradient echo magnetic resonance angiography as an adjunct to coronary arteriography in detecting and confirming the course of clinically significant coronary artery anomalies.  Am J Cardiol. 1997; 79:773-776. 

Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:

  1. AdminaStar Federal, Inc. Local Coverage Determination for: Cardiac Computed Tomography and Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography (LCD23276). Revised 09/15/2006.  Available at: http://www.empiremedicare.com/  Accessed on January 10, 2008.
  2. AdminaStar Federal, Inc. Local Coverage Determination for: Magnetic Resonance Angiography (LCD7662). Revised 10/01/2006.  Available at: http://www.empiremedicare.com/  Accessed on January 10, 2008.
  3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Non-Invasive Imaging for Coronary Artery Disease.  Health Technology Assessment Report conducted at the Duke Evidence-Based Practice Center. 2006 Oct. AHRQ. Rockville, MD. No. 290-02-0025. Available at:  http://www.cms.hhs.gov/determinationprocess/downloads/id34TA.pdf.  Accessed on January 10,  2008.
  4. American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Guideline for the Performance and Interpretation of CT Angiography (CTA).  10/01/2005.  Available at:http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/dx/cardio/ct_angiography.aspx Accessed on January 11, 2008.
  5. American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Guideline for the Performance of Pediatric and Adult Body MRA. Effective October 2005. Available at:  http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/dx/cardio/body_mra.aspx. Accessed on January 10, 2008.
  6. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Contrast-enhanced Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography.  TEC Assessment, 2004; updated April 7, 2005; 22(1).
  7. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Contrast-enhanced Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography in the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Stenosis or for Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain.  TEC Assessment, 2006; 21(5).
  8. Budoff MJ,  Cohen MC, Garcia MJ, et al. ACCF/AHA Clinical Competence Statement on Cardiac Imaging with Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46:383-402.
  9. Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS, et al.  A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology.  AHA Scientific Statement:  Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease by Cardiac Computed Tomography.  Circulation. 2006; 114:1761-1791.
  10. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determination: Computerized Tomography. NCD #220.1. Effective November 22, 1985. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov.   Accessed on January 14, 2008.
  11. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Proposed Coverage Decision Memorandum for Computed Tomographic Angiography for the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease (CAG-00385N).  If approved, would not be issued until March 2008.  Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewdraftdecisionmemo.asp?from2=viewdraftdecisionmemo.asp&id=206&. Accessed on January 14, 2008.
  12. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  National Coverage Determination: Magnetic Resonance Angiography. NCD #220.3.  Effective July 1, 2003.  Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov.  Accessed on January 14, 2008.
  13. Hayes, Inc. Hayes Medical Technology Directory. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Angiography. Lansdale, PA: Hayes, Inc; August 2005. Search updated September 3, 2007.
  14. Hayes, Inc. Hayes Medical Technology Directory. Multislice Computed Tomography for Detection of Coronary Artery Disease. Lansdale, PA: Hayes, Inc; July 6, 2004. Reviewed, updated, and unbundled as a detection-specific report on July 19, 2007.
  15. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR Appropriateness Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and Society of Interventional Radiology.  J Am Col Cardiol. 2006; 48(7).
  16. Kramer CM, Budoff MJ, Fayad ZA, et al. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical competence statement on vascular imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training.  Circulation. 2007; 116:1318 –1335. (Co-published in the September 11, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  Available at:  http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.186849.  Accessed on January 10, 2008.
  17. Olin JW, Kaufman JA, Bluemke DA, et al.  American Heart Association (AHA). Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease Conference: Writing Group IV: Imaging. Circulation. 2004; 109(21):2626-2633.
  18. Patel MR, Hurwitz LM, Orlando L, McCrory DC, Medicare Coverage Advisory Commission, et al. Noninvasive imaging for coronary artery disease: a technology assessment for the Medicare Coverage Advisory Commission. Am Heart J. 2007; 153(2):161-174.
  19. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography: executive summary and recommendations.  A report 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.  Circ. 1999; 99:2345-2357.
  20. Stillman AE, Oudkerk M, Ackerman M, et al. 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. 2007.
  21. Walsh J. California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF). Computed tomographic angiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis and for the evaluation of acute chest pain. A Technology Assessment. San Francisco, CA. 2007.
Web Sites for Additional Information
  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH). National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/.   Accessed on January 10, 2008.
  2. Siemens Medical Solutions. SOMATOM Definition Product Information. Malvern PA. Available at: http://cardiology.usa.siemens.com/.  Accessed on January 10, 2008.
Index

CAD
Computed Tomography Angiography
Coronary Artery Disease
CTA
Virtual Angiography

Policy History

Status

Date

Action

Revised

02/21/2008

Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee (MPTAC) review.  No change to stance. The title was changed from Contrast-Enhanced Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA) to: Coronary Artery Imaging:  Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA). The phrase "investigational/not medically necessary" was clarified to read "investigational and not medically necessary."  This change was approved at the November 29, 2007 MPTAC meeting.  References, coding, and Background sections were updated.

Reviewed

03/08/2007

MPTAC review.  No change to policy stance/criteria.  Information in the Rationale section was updated to include comments from the 2006 AHA Scientific Statement (Budoff, 2006). References and Coding sections were also updated.

Revised

12/07/2006

MPTAC review.  Policy stance was revised to consider CTA medically necessary for the evaluation of suspected anomalous coronary arteries, subject to criteria being met.  Also added policy statement regarding MRA for evaluation of coronary arteries as investigational/not medically necessary. Rationale, coding, and reference sections were also updated.

Reviewed

03/23/2006

MPTAC review. No changes to policy criteria.  References were updated.

Reviewed

01/01/2006

Updated coding section with 01/01/2006 CPT/HCPCS changes

 

11/17/2005

Added reference for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) – National Coverage Determination (NCD).

New

04/28/2005

MPTAC initial policy development.