Cardiac CT Angiography (CCTA) 2026: Ultimate Guide to Coronary Artery Disease Diagnosis, Coronary Stenosis Assessment, CT-FFR, AI Plaque Analysis, and Diagnostic Accuracy
At a glance
- Cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) is the leading non-invasive imaging test for coronary artery disease (CAD) and coronary stenosis evaluation in 2026.
- CCTA demonstrates sensitivity 95–98%, specificity 80–90%, and NPV 95–99% for detecting obstructive CAD.
- CT-FFR computes fractional flow reserve from standard CCTA datasets, identifying ischemia-causing lesions without additional scanning.
- AI quantitative plaque analysis automates stenosis grading, plaque segmentation, and high-risk feature detection with AUC 0.93–0.96.
- CAD-RADS 2.0 standardizes CCTA reporting with stenosis severity, plaque burden, and functional modifiers (HRP, CT-FFR).
- Optimal contrast protocols use 5–7 mL/s flow rates with high-concentration iodine (320–400 mgI/mL) for homogeneous coronary opacification >300–350 HU.
Introduction: CCTA as the cornerstone of non-invasive coronary assessment
Cardiac CT angiography (CCTA), also known as coronary CT angiography or heart CT scan for blocked arteries, is the leading non-invasive imaging test for coronary artery disease (CAD) and coronary stenosis evaluation in 2026. This comprehensive guide combines the latest advancements in CCTA diagnostic accuracy (including positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) by stenosis severity), optimal contrast flow rates and injection protocols, CT-FFR for hemodynamic significance, AI-powered plaque morphology analysis and outcome prediction, and the latest SCCT guidelines (CAD-RADS 2.0 with recent quantitative and AI updates).
Whether you are researching CCTA vs invasive coronary angiography, how CCTA rules out blocked arteries, or AI in coronary plaque assessment, this guide provides everything you need—updated for July 2026 with current trends, reimbursement changes, and clinical insights.
CCTA has evolved from a niche research tool to a first-line diagnostic modality endorsed by major cardiology societies. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) now recommend CCTA as the preferred initial test for patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD.
Optimize your cardiac CT protocols with SATMED
Discover how SATMED’s contrast media calculator and protocol tools can streamline your CCTA workflow and improve diagnostic consistency.
Explore SATMED Health Solutions →What is cardiac CT angiography (CCTA)?
Cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) is a non-invasive imaging procedure that uses iodinated contrast and computed tomography to visualize the coronary arteries with high resolution. It accurately detects coronary stenosis, plaque buildup, calcification, and high-risk features without catheterization. As a first-line test for patients with intermediate pretest probability of CAD or chest pain, CCTA offers lower radiation exposure, rapid results, and excellent rule-out capability compared to invasive coronary angiography.
The technical foundation of CCTA rests on several key innovations: ECG-gated acquisition to freeze cardiac motion, sub-millimeter isotropic spatial resolution (typically 0.5–0.625 mm) for detailed coronary visualization, and iterative reconstruction algorithms that maintain diagnostic quality at reduced radiation doses. Modern scanners achieve effective doses of 1–3 mSv for CCTA—comparable to or lower than diagnostic cardiac catheterization—making it an increasingly attractive option for both patients and referrers.
Unlike invasive coronary angiography, which visualizes only the arterial lumen, CCTA provides comprehensive assessment of the vessel wall. This enables characterization of non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), quantification of total plaque burden, and identification of high-risk plaque features such as positive remodeling, low-attenuation plaque, and spotty calcification—all of which carry independent prognostic value beyond stenosis severity alone.
Optimal contrast flow rates and injection protocols in CCTA 2026
Diagnostic-quality CCTA requires homogeneous coronary opacification (>300–350 HU). Modern protocols use high-concentration iodine contrast (320–400 mgI/mL) with power injection and saline chasers to achieve compact, high-attenuation boluses that maximize vessel delineation while minimizing artifacts.
| Protocol type | Flow rate (mL/s) | Contrast volume (mL) | Saline chaser (mL) | Key benefits and clinical notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard monophasic | 5–6 | 50–80 | 30–50 (same rate) | Reliable enhancement; widely used in practice. |
| Biphasic/triphasic | 4–7 | 60–100 | 20–40 | Reduces venous artifacts; patient-tailored. |
| High-flow for advanced scanners | 5–7 | 50–70 | 30–40 | Superior for obese patients or low-kVp protocols. |
| Personalized (weight/kVp-based) | 4–6.5 | 0.8–1.2 mL/kg | Matched rate | Optimizes attenuation; minimizes contrast volume. |
High flow rates (≥5 mL/s) create a compact bolus for sharp vessel delineation and fewer artifacts. The Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) guidelines recommend 5–7 mL/s with bolus tracking for optimal coronary visualization. Bolus tracking typically places a region of interest (ROI) in the ascending aorta, triggering acquisition when attenuation exceeds 100–150 HU, ensuring peak arterial enhancement during the coronary phase.
Patient-specific factors—including body mass index, cardiac output, and renal function—must inform protocol selection. Obese patients may require higher iodine delivery rates (IDR ≥2.0 gI/s), while patients with reduced eGFR benefit from minimized contrast volumes and aggressive hydration protocols per ACR guidelines.
Calculate precise contrast doses for every CCTA
Use SATMED’s advanced contrast media calculator with Lean Body Weight, BSA, and eGFR integration for patient-specific dosing.
Try the Contrast Calculator →CCTA diagnostic accuracy: PPV and NPV by coronary stenosis severity
CCTA demonstrates outstanding performance versus invasive angiography, with sensitivity 95–98%, specificity 80–90%, and NPV 95–99% in recent meta-analyses. These metrics position CCTA as the most accurate non-invasive test for coronary artery disease, with particular strength in excluding obstructive disease in patients with stable chest pain.
| Stenosis severity | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Key clinical insights |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≥50% (obstructive) | 95–97 | 83–90 | 64–88 | 95–99 | High NPV safely excludes obstructive CAD. |
| 50–69% (intermediate) | 85–92 | 85–92 | 50–70 | >95 | Frequent overestimation; functional testing recommended. |
| ≥70% (severe) | 93–98 | 90–95 | 80–92 | 97–99 | Strong PPV; high likelihood of ischemia. |
| ≥90% (critical) | >95 | >95 | >90 | >98 | Highly predictive of hemodynamically significant lesions. |
PPV increases with stenosis severity due to fewer false positives in high-grade lesions, while NPV remains consistently excellent—making CCTA an ideal gatekeeper to invasive procedures. The high negative predictive value is particularly clinically valuable: a normal CCTA effectively excludes obstructive CAD with >99% confidence, allowing safe discharge or de-escalation of further testing in appropriately selected patients.
However, CCTA’s specificity is limited by several factors: calcium blooming (beam-hardening artifacts from dense calcification that overestimate stenosis), motion artifacts in patients with irregular heart rhythms, and lower spatial resolution compared to invasive angiography. These limitations are most pronounced in the intermediate stenosis range (50–69%), where functional assessment with CT-FFR or stress testing becomes essential for clinical decision-making.
CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR): Functional assessment in 2026
CT-FFR computes fractional flow reserve from standard CCTA datasets using AI or computational fluid dynamics, identifying ischemia-causing lesions (≤0.80 significant) without additional scanning or stress testing. This represents a paradigm shift in cardiac imaging: for the first time, a single non-invasive acquisition can provide both anatomic and functional assessment of coronary disease.
| Metric vs. invasive FFR | Value (%) | Clinical advantages |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 85–92 | Excellent detection of functional ischemia. |
| Specificity | 75–90 | Superior to anatomic CCTA, especially intermediate stenoses. |
| Overall accuracy | 80–87 | Reclassifies 30–50% of positive CCTA findings. |
| Correlation | r = 0.80–0.90 | Strongest agreement in 70–90% stenosis range. |
CT-FFR significantly improves specificity for intermediate lesions, reduces unnecessary invasive angiography, and aligns with ACC/AHA and SCCT guidelines. The technology works by applying computational fluid dynamics to the CCTA dataset, simulating blood flow under hyperemic conditions and calculating pressure gradients across stenotic segments. This eliminates the need for adenosine administration, additional radiation, or separate stress testing.
From a clinical workflow perspective, CT-FFR is particularly valuable in the intermediate-risk patient with equivocal CCTA findings. Rather than reflexively referring all patients with 50–69% stenosis for invasive angiography, CT-FFR can stratify which lesions are truly flow-limiting—potentially reducing invasive procedures by 30–50% while maintaining diagnostic confidence. In 2026, CT-FFR is widely reimbursed by major payers, and its integration into routine CCTA reporting is increasingly standard at high-volume cardiac CT centers.
Integrate CT-FFR into your cardiac imaging workflow
Learn how SATMED’s protocol management tools support CT-FFR-ready CCTA acquisition and reporting.
Request a Workflow Assessment →Artificial intelligence in CCTA: Plaque morphology analysis and prognostic outcomes
AI quantitative plaque analysis automates stenosis grading, plaque segmentation, and identification of high-risk features (e.g., low-attenuation plaque, necrotic core) on CCTA. These tools leverage deep learning convolutional neural networks trained on thousands of annotated coronary segments to deliver reproducible, operator-independent measurements that exceed human reader consistency.
| AI application | Performance | Prognostic impact and 2026 trends |
|---|---|---|
| Stenosis detection/quantification | AUC 0.93–0.96 | Faster, expert-level accuracy. |
| Plaque volume and composition | r > 0.90 vs. IVUS | Precise non-calcified/low-attenuation measurement. |
| High-risk plaque features | Sensitivity >90% | Detects vulnerable plaques. |
| MACE prediction | HR 1.5–3.0 | Incremental risk beyond stenosis; guides intensive prevention. |
In 2026, AI plaque analysis earns improved reimbursement (Category I codes), enabling broader adoption for long-term risk stratification independent of stenosis severity. The clinical significance of this development cannot be overstated: traditional CCTA reporting focuses on luminal narrowing, yet the majority of acute coronary events arise from non-obstructive plaques. AI-driven plaque characterization identifies these high-risk lesions before they cause symptoms, enabling targeted preventive therapy.
Key high-risk plaque features detected by AI include: low-attenuation plaque (<30 HU, indicating lipid-rich necrotic core), positive remodeling (outward vessel expansion preserving lumen diameter), spotty calcification (<3 mm), and napkin-ring sign (central low attenuation with peripheral rim enhancement). Each feature carries independent prognostic weight, and their combined presence on CCTA confers a 3- to 5-fold increased risk of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
AI quantitative plaque analysis now carries Category I CPT codes, making it reimbursable under most major insurance plans. This represents a significant shift from prior experimental status and accelerates adoption across community and academic practices alike.
Deploy AI-powered cardiac imaging in your department
SATMED Health connects imaging departments with validated, regulatory-cleared AI tools for CCTA plaque analysis and CT-FFR computation.
Register for AI-Powered Cardiac Tools →Latest SCCT guidelines 2026: CAD-RADS 2.0 and recent updates
CAD-RADS 2.0 (2022) standardizes CCTA reporting with stenosis severity, plaque burden, and modifiers (HRP for high-risk plaque, I for ischemia via CT-FFR). This structured reporting framework ensures consistency across readers, institutions, and clinical trials—enabling meaningful comparison of outcomes and facilitating multidisciplinary communication.
| CAD-RADS category | Stenosis severity | Management recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | None | No further evaluation. |
| 1–2 | 1–49% | Guideline-directed medical therapy. |
| 3 | 50–69% | Consider functional testing or CT-FFR. |
| 4A/4B | 70–99% / LM >50% | ICA consideration. |
| 5 | Total occlusion | ICA recommended. |
| 6 | Non-diagnostic | Alternative testing. |
Recent updates include quantitative plaque standards and AI integration emphasis. The 2026 SCCT guidelines specifically recommend that CAD-RADS reports incorporate: (1) percent diameter stenosis per segment, (2) total plaque burden (Agatston score or segment involvement score), (3) presence of high-risk plaque features, and (4) functional assessment when available (CT-FFR or stress imaging). This comprehensive approach moves beyond simple stenosis grading to a holistic coronary risk assessment.
Modifiers add critical nuance to the base CAD-RADS score. The HRP modifier flags high-risk plaque features that elevate event risk independent of stenosis severity. The I modifier indicates documented ischemia (via CT-FFR ≤0.80 or positive stress test), which upgrades management urgency. The S modifier denotes heavy calcification that may limit stenosis accuracy. Together, these modifiers transform CAD-RADS from a simple numeric score into a clinically actionable risk communication tool.
CCTA vs invasive coronary angiography
CCTA provides comparable or superior outcomes with lower procedural risks, reduced downstream revascularization, and non-invasive advantages. Ideal for stable chest pain evaluation; invasive angiography reserved for high-risk cases or intervention. The landmark SCOT-HEART and DISCHARGE trials established CCTA’s non-inferiority to invasive angiography for major cardiovascular outcomes while reducing procedure-related complications by 60–80%.
The comparative advantages of CCTA are most pronounced in specific clinical scenarios:
- Stable chest pain with intermediate pretest probability: CCTA is the preferred initial test per ESC and ACC guidelines, providing both diagnostic certainty and prognostic stratification in a single study.
- Emergency department chest pain rule-out: CCTA safely excludes acute coronary syndrome in low-to-intermediate risk patients, reducing length of stay and healthcare costs compared to observation protocols.
- Pre-operative cardiac risk assessment: For non-cardiac surgery, CCTA offers a non-invasive alternative to stress testing in patients who cannot exercise.
- Post-revascularization surveillance: CCTA effectively evaluates bypass graft patency and in-stent restenosis in selected patients, though heavily calcified stents remain a limitation.
Invasive coronary angiography retains its role as the gold standard for: (1) patients with high-risk features on non-invasive testing, (2) those requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), (3) hemodynamically unstable patients, and (4) cases where CCTA is technically inadequate (severe calcification, arrhythmia, contrast allergy). The optimal clinical pathway uses CCTA as a gatekeeper, reserving invasive angiography for patients with confirmed high-risk anatomy or documented ischemia.
Make informed decisions with comprehensive cardiac imaging
Learn how SATMED’s protocol tools support evidence-based CCTA acquisition and reporting aligned with SCCT guidelines.
Request a Clinical Consultation →Clinical implications of CCTA in 2026
With optimized high-flow protocols, CCTA reliably excludes obstructive CAD (high NPV), while severe stenosis or positive CT-FFR yields strong PPV for intervention. AI plaque analysis adds powerful prognostic value, identifying high-risk patients early. Following SCCT guidelines minimizes invasive procedures and personalizes CAD management.
The integration of these technologies into routine practice has several transformative implications:
- Upstream risk detection: AI plaque analysis identifies vulnerable patients before symptoms develop, enabling primary prevention strategies (statins, aspirin, lifestyle modification) in patients who would otherwise be classified as low-risk based on stenosis alone.
- Functional-anatomic convergence: CT-FFR bridges the historical divide between anatomic and functional testing, providing a unified assessment that guides revascularization decisions with greater confidence than either modality alone.
- Workflow efficiency: Automated AI analysis reduces reporting time by 40–60%, enabling same-day reporting and faster clinical decision-making in busy practices.
- Cost-effectiveness: Multiple health economic analyses demonstrate that CCTA-first strategies reduce total diagnostic costs by 15–25% compared to functional testing-first or direct invasive angiography approaches, primarily by reducing unnecessary downstream procedures.
High-volume cardiac CT centers should adopt integrated CCTA + CT-FFR + AI plaque analysis workflows as standard of care for stable chest pain evaluation. This triple-modality approach maximizes diagnostic yield, prognostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness while minimizing patient risk.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between cardiac CT and CCTA?
Standard cardiac CT assesses structure and function (chamber sizes, wall motion, valvular anatomy); CCTA specifically images coronary arteries with contrast for stenosis and plaque evaluation. CCTA requires ECG-gated acquisition, higher temporal resolution, and precise contrast timing—making it a more technically demanding but diagnostically richer examination.
Is CCTA better than invasive coronary angiography?
Yes for diagnosis and risk stratification—non-invasive, lower risk, high NPV, and excellent outcomes. Invasive angiography remains superior for intervention planning and is reserved for high-risk or symptomatic patients requiring revascularization. The choice depends on clinical context: CCTA excels as a gatekeeper; invasive angiography is definitive for treatment.
How accurate is CCTA for detecting blocked arteries?
NPV >95–99%; outstanding rule-out capability. For obstructive stenosis (≥50%), sensitivity exceeds 95%. However, specificity is lower (80–90%) due to calcium blooming artifacts, particularly in patients with heavy coronary calcification. CT-FFR improves specificity for intermediate lesions by adding functional assessment.
What is CT-FFR and does insurance cover it?
Non-invasive functional assessment from CCTA data; widely reimbursed in 2026. CT-FFR computes pressure gradients across stenoses using computational fluid dynamics, eliminating the need for separate stress testing. Major payers including Medicare and commercial insurers now cover CT-FFR when performed as part of a clinically indicated CCTA.
Is AI plaque analysis covered by insurance in 2026?
Yes, with improving Category I reimbursement. The 2026 CPT coding updates include dedicated codes for AI-assisted coronary plaque quantification, making this previously experimental technology financially viable for routine clinical practice. Coverage varies by payer; prior authorization may be required for initial implementation.
Who should get a CCTA?
Patients with intermediate-risk chest pain or suspected CAD—consult your cardiologist. Specific indications include: stable chest pain with intermediate pretest probability, emergency department chest pain with low-to-intermediate risk profile, pre-operative cardiac assessment, and evaluation of known CAD progression. Contraindications include severe renal impairment (eGFR <30), contrast allergy, pregnancy, and atrial fibrillation with uncontrolled rate.
Conclusion
Cardiac CT angiography has evolved from a promising research modality to the cornerstone of non-invasive coronary assessment in 2026. The convergence of high-resolution anatomic imaging, computational fluid dynamics (CT-FFR), and artificial intelligence (AI plaque analysis) has created a unified diagnostic platform that delivers anatomic, functional, and prognostic information from a single, low-risk acquisition.
The evidence is unequivocal: CCTA’s NPV exceeding 95–99% makes it the most reliable non-invasive test for excluding obstructive CAD. When combined with CT-FFR, it provides functional assessment that rivals invasive FFR without additional radiation or pharmacologic stress. AI quantitative plaque analysis adds prognostic depth by identifying vulnerable plaques before they cause events, enabling truly preventive cardiology.
For radiographers, radiologists, and cardiologists, mastering CCTA in 2026 means understanding not only the technical parameters of acquisition but also the clinical implications of CAD-RADS 2.0 reporting, the integration of CT-FFR into routine workflow, and the appropriate application of AI tools for plaque characterization. The future of cardiac imaging is not more tests—it is smarter, more comprehensive tests that deliver actionable information at the point of care.
As healthcare systems worldwide face increasing pressure to deliver high-quality care at lower cost, CCTA stands as a model of value-based imaging: accurate, efficient, patient-centered, and economically sustainable. The integration of optimal contrast protocols, standardized reporting, and AI-enhanced analysis ensures that every CCTA performed in 2026 delivers maximum clinical impact for every patient scanned.
Further reading
- Best CT and MRI Contrast Media Calculator — SATMED Health
- 7 Critical CT Pulmonary Angiogram Protocol Steps — SATMED Health
- Radiology Workflow in 2026: AI Orchestration and Intelligent Imaging — SATMED Health
- Scaling Radiology AI 2026: Moving from Pilot Projects to Core Infrastructure — SATMED Health
- The Price We Pay for Bubbles in CT and MRI: Understanding Venous Air Embolism — SATMED Health
References
- Abbara, S., Blanke, P., Cury, R. C., Leipsic, J., Maroules, C., Rossi, A., et al. (2016). SCCT guidelines for the performance and acquisition of coronary computed tomographic angiography: A report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, 10(6), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2016.10.002
- Cury, R. C., Abbara, S., Achenbach, S., Agatston, A., Berman, D. S., Budoff, M. J., et al. (2022). CAD-RADS 2.0 – 2022 Coronary Artery Disease – Reporting and Data System: An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT). Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, 16(4), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2022.07.002
- Abbara et al. (2016). SCCT guidelines for the performance and acquisition of coronary computed tomographic angiography. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, 10(6), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2016.10.002
- Bae, K. T. (2010). Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: Considerations and approaches. Radiology, 256(1), 32–61. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10090908
- Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography angiography compared with invasive coronary angiography. (2025). Various sources including PMC.
- Celeng, C., Leiner, T., Maurovich-Horvat, P., et al. (2019). Anatomical and functional computed tomography for diagnosing coronary artery disease. European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging, 20(7), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jez057
- Tang, C. X., Liu, C. Y., Lu, M. J., Schoepf, U. J., et al. (2024). A meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of computed tomography fractional flow reserve and coronary computed tomography angiography. European Radiology, 34(3), 1521–1533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10234-5
- Nørgaard, B. L., Terkelsen, C. J., Mathiassen, O. N., et al. (2022). Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 79(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.10.041
- Narula, J., Chandrashekhar, Y., & Ahmadi, A. (2025). Quantitative coronary plaque analysis in clinical practice. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 18(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2024.09.008
- Choi, A. D., Marques, H., Kumar, V., et al. (2025). Artificial intelligence–based coronary plaque quantification. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 18(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2024.11.012
- Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. (2023–2025 updates). Quantitative standards and AI integration. SCCT Practice Guidelines.
- Knuuti, J., Wijns, W., Saraste, A., et al. (2019). 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal, 41(3), 407–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425
- Newby, D. E., Adamson, P. D., Berry, C., et al. (2018). Coronary CT angiography and 5-year risk of myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(10), 924–933. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1805971
- DISCHARGE Trial Group. (2022). CT or invasive coronary angiography in stable chest pain. New England Journal of Medicine, 386(17), 1591–1602. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2200963
- Curzen, N., Nicholas, Z., Stuart, B., et al. (2021). Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: The FORECAST randomized trial. European Heart Journal, 42(37), 3844–3852. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab444
- Williams, M. C., Moss, A. J., Dweck, M., et al. (2019). Coronary artery plaque characteristics associated with adverse outcomes in the SCOT-HEART study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 73(3), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.066
- Oba, H., van Rosendael, A. R., Bax, A. M., et al. (2022). Prognostic value of quantitative plaque analysis from coronary CT angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 15(5), 869–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2021.11.022
- Pontone, G., Andreini, D., Guaricci, A. I., et al. (2022). Incremental diagnostic value of stress CT perfusion over coronary CT angiography alone. European Heart Journal, 43(16), 1564–1576. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab871
- Hoffmann, U., Ferencik, M., Udelson, J. E., et al. (2017). Prognostic value of noninvasive cardiovascular testing in patients with stable chest pain: Insights from the PROMISE trial. Circulation, 135(24), 2320–2332. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.024360
- Andreini, D., Modolo, R., Katagiri, Y., et al. (2023). Impact of artificial intelligence on coronary CT angiography: Current state and future directions. Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging, 5(2), e220245. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.220245
- Rudzinski, P. N., Slomka, P. J., Curzen, N., et al. (2023). Machine learning prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging, 24(5), 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jead035
- Maurovich-Horvat, P., Ferencik, M., Voros, S., et al. (2023). Comprehensive plaque assessment by coronary CT angiography. Nature Reviews Cardiology, 20(10), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-023-00852-7
- Dey, D., Gaur, S., Ovrehus, K. A., et al. (2020). Integrated prediction of lesion-specific ischemia from quantitative coronary CT angiography using machine learning. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 13(12), 2615–2626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.04.028
- Driessen, R. S., Danad, I., Stuijfzand, W. J., et al. (2018). Comparison of coronary computed tomography angiography, fractional flow reserve, and perfusion imaging for ischemia diagnosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 73(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.081
- van Rosendael, A. R., Lin, F. Y., Ma, X., et al. (2021). Association of high-density calcified plaque with risk of adverse cardiovascular disease events. JAMA Cardiology, 6(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2020.5628
- Han, D., Chen, B., Gransar, H., et al. (2020). Prognostic value of coronary atherosclerotic burden and coronary artery disease reporting and data system score. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 13(7), 1533–1543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.08.014
- American College of Radiology. (2023). ACR Manual on Contrast Media, 2023 Edition. ACR Clinical Resources.
- European Society of Cardiology. (2024). ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes: 2024 update. European Heart Journal.
- Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. (2025). SCCT expert consensus document on coronary CT angiography reporting: 2025 update. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.
- Leipsic, J., Abbara, S., Achenbach, S., et al. (2014). SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: A report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, 8(5), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2014.07.003
