Light gray square, with a dark gray border on the sides.

Blog

Cardiac CT Scan Vs Angiogram: What's The Difference?

October 17, 2023

A cardiac computerized tomography (CT) scan – which can also be referred to as a coronary CT angiography or CT angiogram – is an imaging test to view the heart and blood vessels. It is a test that carries few risks and is less invasive than alternative procedures such as an angiogram.

In this article, we are going to compare an angiogram with a cardiac CT scan; a more modern version of the traditional angiogram.


What is an angiogram?


An angiogram uses X-rays to produce images of the heart’s blood vessels. It is done to check for any restrictions of the blood flow to the heart. An angiogram is also able to diagnose and treat conditions relating to the heart and blood vessels.


An angiogram works by guiding a catheter into the artery near the wrist or groin so the contrast dye can be injected to highlight blood vessels within the targeted area. An incision must be made in order to insert the catheter, and this is performed under a local anaesthetic. As the contrast agent flows through the blood vessels, X-rays of the head and chest will be taken from various angles. This is to diagnose or detect any issues affecting a patient’s blood vessels, such as atherosclerosis.


What is a CT angiogram?


A cardiac CT angiogram is a less invasive version of the traditional angiogram. Utilising state of the art computer tomography scanners, it checks the arteries supplying blood to the heart, and can be used to diagnose conditions such as coronary artery disease (CAD). Using detailed images of the heart and blood vessels, a CT angiogram can accurately highlight any narrowed or congested blood vessels.


CT angiography vs angiogram


CT angiography is a less invasive version of the traditional angiogram. The main difference between the two procedures is that while a standard angiogram involves a catheter being inserted into the artery and to the area being studied, a CT angiogram does not require the insertion of a catheter.


A significant advantage of a CT angiogram over a traditional angiogram is that a CT angiogram is non-invasive. However, for cases of abnormal CT angiogram results - such as one or several blood vessels being blocked or narrowed - a standard angiogram may be required as a follow-up. This is typical when surgery to treat the blockage or narrowing is being considered. Therefore, in some cases, a traditional angiogram can be more beneficial than a CT angiogram, as the doctor can perform an angioplasty right away.


How accurate is a CT angiogram compared to a traditional angiogram?


Studies have assessed the accuracy of a CT angiogram in comparison to an invasive coronary angiography. A study of CT coronary angiography vs invasive coronary angiography in coronary heart disease (CHD) looked at data from 44 diagnostic studies using invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard and two diagnostic studies using intracoronary pressure measurement as the reference standard. It was found that compared to invasive coronary angiography, CT coronary angiography had a sensitivity of 80% versus 67%, and a specificity of 67% versus 75%.


It is advised that CT coronary angiography should be the method of choice for ruling out obstructive coronary stenoses (OCS) to avoid patients having to experience an invasive angiogram. However, this should only be advised for patients with a pretest probability for CHD of 50% or lower.


Another study into the accuracy of CT angiography looked at 291 patients with symptoms of coronary artery disease (CAD) who were examined using a 64-slice CT scanner. It was found that CT angiogram identified 85% of patients with significant stenoses and 90% of patients with CAD accurately. The authors concluded that while CT angiography was not ready to replace conventional angiograms entirely, the more modern procedure was nearly as accurate as the traditional angiogram.


Cardiac CT Angiograms possess a high amount of accuracy for detecting CHD in patients when compared to a traditional angiogram. Nevertheless, diagnostic accuracy is decreased in diagnosing coronary stents due and severe coronary artery calcification due to its subordinate spatial resolution when compared to invasive angiograms.


However, a recent discovery has found an ultrahigh-resolution CT scanner that could be capable of overcoming the limitation of conventional CTA in the environment of severe stents or coronary artery calcification, thus surpassing it’s invasive counterpart. The ultrahigh-resolution CT scanner (UHR-CT) is equipped with 0.25 mm detector rows, half the width than what’s currently on the market (0.5 mm), which will result in twice the spatial resolution.


Angiogram risks


As with any procedure that involves X-rays, an angiogram exposes you to radiation. Complications from an angiogram are rare. However, potential risks include:


  • Injury to the catheterized artery
  • An allergic reaction to the medication or contrast agent
  • Arrhythmias
  • Bleeding
  • Infection
  • Stroke
  • Heart attack


CT angiogram risks


Like an angiogram, the X-rays that are involved in a CT angiogram will expose you to radiation. The level of exposure will depend on the machine type that is used. There is some degree of risk related to radiation exposure - such as the potential to harm living tissue and cause cancer - although this risk is small. You are not suitable for a CT angiogram if you are pregnant, as there is the potential it might harm your unborn baby.


Other potential complications from a CT angiogram, which are rare, include an allergic reaction to the contrast agent, which could cause symptoms such as:


  • Redness
  • Itching
  • Hives
  • Breathing difficulty
  • Nausea


Conclusion


A CT angiogram and a traditional angiogram are both effective imaging tests in diagnosing conditions relating to the heart and blood vessels. However, many will favor the non-invasive option of a CT angiogram, which is fast, convenient and relatively painless. A CT angiogram is very accurate in detecting CHD in patients and almost as accurate as a traditional angiogram, allowing doctors to make decisions such as ruling out CAD in patients with a low-to-medium risk of disease.


CT scans are already the preferred method of choice for patients with a pretest probability for CHD of 50% or lower. And with the recent introduction of ultrahigh-resolution CT scanners, it could only be a matter of time until conventional invasive angiograms are slowly filtered out and replaced entirely by CT scanners; due to their accuracy, convenience and development in spatial resolution.


Try cvi42 for CT scanners


Our fully embedded AI medical imaging software tool cvi42, provides unique tools for the evaluations of CAD using cardiac CT. These include:



You can learn more about the capabilities of our leading CT imaging software by downloading a free 42 day trial of cvi42. Experience the difference in AI reporting today. For more information or to speak to our customer support team, please contact us.


Sources:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334923/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa0806576

https://www.docpanel.com/blog/post/significance-coronary-artery-calcification-ct-scan


https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronary-angioplasty/

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/arteriosclerosis-atherosclerosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20350569#:~:text=Atherosclerosis%20is%20the%20buildup%20of,leading%20to%20a%20blood%20clot.


https://www.nhsinform.scot/tests-and-treatments/scans-and-x-rays/angiography#:~:text=An%20angiogram%20is%20a%20type,as%20it%20moves%20through%20them.

Logo for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, featuring a stylized green spiral and the company name in grey text.
March 23, 2026
Clinical Wins and Daily Practice Introduction A single cardiovascular imaging platform like Circle’s cvi 42 changes daily work for cardiologists and radiologists from “tool juggling” to focused clinical practice. But it also asks for effort and carries real, though manageable, risks. Seeing this change from your perspective, the people interpreting images and shaping programs, makes it easier to decide whether adopting a unified platform is worthwhile. What clinicians gain from one platform Less friction, more clinical time With one platform across MR, CT, structural heart, and EP: You spend less time deciding which tool to open and more time deciding what the data means. One login, one interface, and one workflow logic govern all modalities. Measurements, annotations, and reports behave consistently, so you aren’t constantly switching “UI languages.” AI and automation (e.g., contours, plaque, TAVR workflows) are applied the same way regardless of scanner or modality. This creates cognitive ease, a predictable environment where your brain can focus on nuance and complex decisionmaking instead of navigation. Better consistency and confidence A single platform builds one mental model for cardiac data: acquisition, processing, quantification, and reporting. Standardized protocols and templates reduce variability between readers and sites. Quantification tools remain the same across cases, deepening expertise in one toolkit. Shared measurement formats simplify heartteam discussions and QA reviews. This strengthens diagnostic confidence and supports defensible, consistent decisions. Stronger positioning for advanced and reimbursed work With MR, CT, structural heart, and electrophysiology workflows unified: Advanced workflows (perfusion, strain, plaque) feel like natural extensions of current practice. New reimbursed features (like AIbased plaque quantification) integrate smoothly into routine CCTA reads. Research and innovation benefit from standardized, unified data exports. This positions programs to stay clinically advanced and financially competitive. Less burnout, more sustainable practice Fragmented tools mean more clicks, context shifts, and afterhours work. Integrating platforms can: Reduce duplicate actions via shared worklists and structured reporting. Lower cognitive load through interface consistency. Simplify coverage and crosstraining, so expertise isn’t isolated to one person. Behavioral science shows that reducing friction and restoring control is as important as cutting workload—key factors for preventing burnout. Stay tuned for Part 4: The Effort, Risks, and Why It’s Worth It. While the clinical and operational gains are clear, shifting to a single platform isn't "zero effort". In our final installment, we’ll have a candid discussion about the implementation valley—addressing common concerns like short-term slowdowns and vendor dependence—and show how these risks are mitigated to create a safer, fairer, and more transparent environment for everyone.
Patient in a hospital gown lies on a CT scanner bed, nurse smiles and comforts him. White and gray machine, neutral setting.
March 17, 2026
For years, the Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) score has been the gold standard for a quick, non-invasive look at heart disease risk. It’s a vital tool that has helped millions of patients understand if they have "hardening of the arteries." But while a calcium score tells us that plaque is present, it only tells part of the story. As medical technology evolves, we are moving beyond simply identifying the presence of calcium to a much more detailed understanding of heart disease. With the advent of AI-enabled coronary plaque analysis, such as cvi42 | Plaque , patients and physicians now have access to a deeper level of insight that was previously impossible to achieve through standard screening alone. What is AI-Enabled Coronary Plaque Analysis? While a traditional calcium score measures the amount of mineralized (hard) plaque in your coronary arteries, AI-enabled plaque analysis looks at the "soft" or non-calcified plaque as well.
Triple threat: illustrations showing anatomical heart, heart with clock, and inflamed heart with viruses.
March 12, 2026
The Clinical Challenge & the cvi42 Solution Executive Summary Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of global mortality, yet diagnostic workflows remain fragmented. Traditionally, clinicians have been forced to navigate disconnected systems to assess a patient’s heart: one for anatomy (CCTA), another for function (CMR/Strain), and a third for vascular inflammation (PCAT/Plaque). This "siloed" approach creates diagnostic friction, increases costs, and delays life-saving interventions.
March 10, 2026
Clinical and Financial Wins that Scale From Single Platform to Strategic Advantage Clinicians, department heads, and executives each win differently from consolidation. Circle’s cvi 42 turns integration into tangible impact across MR, CT, structural heart, and electrophysiology programs. Why Circle’s platform stands apart For clinicians: Market-leading MR and CT tools in one workspace, with AI-driven workflows for function, tissue, plaque, and procedural planning—faster, reproducible reads and intuitive tools for edge cases. For department heads: Consistent multimodality workflows, research-grade quantification, and data exports supporting registries and AI projects. For finance leaders: Shared investment across MR and CT service lines, volumealigned pricing, and new reimbursable procedures like AIenabled coronary plaque analysis. 

Subscribe to our newsletter

 Don’t miss future articles or publications.