ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Beyond the heart: prevalence and implications of extra-coronary findings in coronary CT angiography: a retrospective study.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Idiopathic dilatation of the pulmonary artery: a pediatric case report and literature review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the prevalence and clinical implications of extra-coronary findings in a large cohort of patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed data from 3295 consecutive CCTA examinations at a single tertiary center. Radiology reports were reviewed for potentially significant extra-coronary findings. Three-year follow-up evaluation was performed via hospital records. Prevalences of confirmed significant findings were determined and extrapolated to patients lost to follow-up.
resultsExtra-coronary findings were reported in 92.7% (3053/3295) of patients. Potentially significant non-cardiovascular findings were found in 25.3% (833/3295), including potentially malignant findings in 8.5% (281/3295) and significant non-malignant findings in 19.3% (637/3295). Among patients with potentially malignant findings, 40.2% (113/281) underwent follow-up, with confirmed malignancy in 28.3% (32/113). Extrapolation suggests a malignancy prevalence of up to 2.4% (95% CI: 1.8-3.2%) within the CCTA field of view, with a minimum of 1.0% if all patients lost to follow-up were assumed to have no malignancy. The most frequent significant non-malignant finding was pulmonary emphysema (10.7%; 352/3295), with extrapolated prevalence rates of 4.2% (95% CI: 2.6-5.9% for COPD and 1.8% (95% CI: 0.8-3.4%) for asthma or obstructive sleep apnea. Liver steatosis was present in 4.5% (147/3295), with an estimated prevalence of 3.1% (95% CI: 1.6-4.2%) for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.3-2.9%) for alcohol-related liver disease.
conclusionExtra-coronary findings are common in CCTA and carry important clinical implications. Careful management is necessary, and additional screening protocols may benefit high-risk patients. KEY POINTS: Question How frequently do extra-coronary findings occur in coronary CT angiography, and what is their clinical impact in patients undergoing cardiac evaluation? Findings Clinically significant extra-coronary non-cardiovascular findings were identified in 25.3% of patients, including unsuspected malignancies and relevant pulmonary and hepatic comorbidities. Clinical relevance Extra-coronary findings on coronary CT angiography are common and often clinically relevant, warranting structured assessment to support timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.