Lene H Nielsen1, Nino Ortner2, Bjarne L Nørgaard3, Stephan Achenbach4, Jonathon Leipsic5, Jawdat Abdulla2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Lillebaelt Hospital, Kabbeltoft 25, Vejle 7100, Denmark lenehuche@gmail.com. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Glostrup University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark. 3. Department of Cardiology B, Aarhus University Hospital Skejby, Aarhus N, Denmark. 4. Department of Cardiology, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Department of Medical Imaging, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abstract
AIMS: To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy and post-test outcomes of conventional exercise electrocardiography (XECG) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared with coronary computed tomography angiography (coronary CTA) in patients suspected of stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched for studies published from January 2002 to February 2013 examining the diagnostic accuracy (defined as at least ≥50% luminal obstruction on invasive coronary angiography) and outcomes of coronary CTA (≥16 slice) in comparison with XECG and SPECT. The search revealed 11 eligible studies (N = 1575) comparing the diagnostic accuracy and 7 studies (N = 216.603) the outcomes of coronary CTA vs. XECG or/and SPECT. The per-patient sensitivity [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] to identify significant CAD was 98% (93-99%) for coronary CTA vs. 67% (54-78%) (P < 0.001) for XECG and 99% (96-100%) vs. 73% (59-83%) (P = 0.001) for SPECT. The specificity (95% CI) of coronary CTA was 82% (63-93%) vs. 46% (30-64%) (P < 0.001) for XECG and 71% (60-80%) vs. 48% (31-64%) (P = 0.14) for SPECT. The odds ratio (OR) of downstream test utilization (DTU) for coronary CTA vs. XECG/SPECT was 1.38 (1.33-1.43, P < 0.001), for revascularization 2.63 (2.50-2.77, P < 0.001), for non-fatal myocardial infarction 0.53 (0.39-0.72, P < 0.001), and for all-cause mortality 1.01 (0.87-1.18, P = 0.87). CONCLUSION: The up-front diagnostic performance of coronary CTA is higher than of XECG and SPECT. When compared with XECG/SPECT testing, coronary CTA testing is associated with increased DTU and coronary revascularization. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy and post-test outcomes of conventional exercise electrocardiography (XECG) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) compared with coronary computed tomography angiography (coronary CTA) in patients suspected of stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched for studies published from January 2002 to February 2013 examining the diagnostic accuracy (defined as at least ≥50% luminal obstruction on invasive coronary angiography) and outcomes of coronary CTA (≥16 slice) in comparison with XECG and SPECT. The search revealed 11 eligible studies (N = 1575) comparing the diagnostic accuracy and 7 studies (N = 216.603) the outcomes of coronary CTA vs. XECG or/and SPECT. The per-patient sensitivity [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] to identify significant CAD was 98% (93-99%) for coronary CTA vs. 67% (54-78%) (P < 0.001) for XECG and 99% (96-100%) vs. 73% (59-83%) (P = 0.001) for SPECT. The specificity (95% CI) of coronary CTA was 82% (63-93%) vs. 46% (30-64%) (P < 0.001) for XECG and 71% (60-80%) vs. 48% (31-64%) (P = 0.14) for SPECT. The odds ratio (OR) of downstream test utilization (DTU) for coronary CTA vs. XECG/SPECT was 1.38 (1.33-1.43, P < 0.001), for revascularization 2.63 (2.50-2.77, P < 0.001), for non-fatal myocardial infarction 0.53 (0.39-0.72, P < 0.001), and for all-cause mortality 1.01 (0.87-1.18, P = 0.87). CONCLUSION: The up-front diagnostic performance of coronary CTA is higher than of XECG and SPECT. When compared with XECG/SPECT testing, coronary CTA testing is associated with increased DTU and coronary revascularization. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Roberta Green; Valeria Cantoni; Mario Petretta; Wanda Acampa; Mariarosaria Panico; Pietro Buongiorno; Giorgio Punzo; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Asim Rizvi; Donghee Han; Ibrahim Danad; Bríain Ó Hartaigh; Ji Hyun Lee; Heidi Gransar; Wijnand J Stuijfzand; Hadi Mirhedayati Roudsari; Mahn Won Park; Jackie Szymonifka; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Erica C Jones; Paul Knaapen; Fay Y Lin; James K Min; Jessica M Peña Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-08-16
Authors: Michael K Cheezum; Prem Srinivas Subramaniyam; Marcio S Bittencourt; Edward A Hulten; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Nishant R Shah; Daniel E Forman; Jon Hainer; Marcia Leavitt; Ram Padmanabhan; Hicham Skali; Sharmila Dorbala; Udo Hoffmann; Suhny Abbara; Marcelo F Di Carli; Henry Gewirtz; Ron Blankstein Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 6.875