Omar Wever-Pinzon1, Jorge Romero2, Iosif Kelesidis2, James Wever-Pinzon1, Carlos Manrique2, Deborah Budge1, Stavros G Drakos1, Ileana L Piña2, Abdallah G Kfoury1, Mario J Garcia2, Josef Stehlik3. 1. U.T.A.H. Cardiac Transplant Program, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Veterans Affairs Medical Center & Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York. 3. U.T.A.H. Cardiac Transplant Program, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Veterans Affairs Medical Center & Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. Electronic address: Josef.stehlik@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for detecting cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) in comparison with conventional coronary angiography (CCAG) alone or with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). BACKGROUND: CAV limits long-term survival after heart transplantation, and screening for CAV is performed on annual basis. CCTA is currently not recommended for CAV screening due to the limited accuracy reported by early studies. Technological advances, however, might have resulted in improved test performance and might justify re-evaluation of this recommendation. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase for all prospective trials assessing CAV using CCTA was performed using a standard approach for meta-analysis for diagnostic test and a bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen studies evaluating 615 patients (mean age 52 years, 83% male) and 9,481 segments fulfilled inclusion criteria. Patient-based analyses comparing CCTA versus CCAG for the detection of any CAV (> luminal irregularities) and significant CAV (stenosis ≥50%), showed mean weighted sensitivities of 97% and 94%, specificities of 81% and 92%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% and 99%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 78% and 67%, and diagnostic accuracies of 88% and 94%, respectively. There was a strong trend toward improved sensitivity (97% vs. 91%, p = 0.06) and NPV (99% vs. 97%, p = 0.06) to detect significant CAV with 64-slice compared with 16-slice CCTA. A patient-based analysis of 64-slice CCTA versus IVUS showed a mean weighted sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 75% to detect CAV (intimal thickening >0.5 mm), whereas the PPV and NPV were 93% and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CCTA using currently available technology is a reliable noninvasive imaging alternative to coronary angiography with an excellent sensitivity, specificity, and NPV for the detection of CAV.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for detecting cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) in comparison with conventional coronary angiography (CCAG) alone or with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). BACKGROUND: CAV limits long-term survival after heart transplantation, and screening for CAV is performed on annual basis. CCTA is currently not recommended for CAV screening due to the limited accuracy reported by early studies. Technological advances, however, might have resulted in improved test performance and might justify re-evaluation of this recommendation. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase for all prospective trials assessing CAV using CCTA was performed using a standard approach for meta-analysis for diagnostic test and a bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen studies evaluating 615 patients (mean age 52 years, 83% male) and 9,481 segments fulfilled inclusion criteria. Patient-based analyses comparing CCTA versus CCAG for the detection of any CAV (> luminal irregularities) and significant CAV (stenosis ≥50%), showed mean weighted sensitivities of 97% and 94%, specificities of 81% and 92%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% and 99%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 78% and 67%, and diagnostic accuracies of 88% and 94%, respectively. There was a strong trend toward improved sensitivity (97% vs. 91%, p = 0.06) and NPV (99% vs. 97%, p = 0.06) to detect significant CAV with 64-slice compared with 16-slice CCTA. A patient-based analysis of 64-slice CCTA versus IVUS showed a mean weighted sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 75% to detect CAV (intimal thickening >0.5 mm), whereas the PPV and NPV were 93% and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:CCTA using currently available technology is a reliable noninvasive imaging alternative to coronary angiography with an excellent sensitivity, specificity, and NPV for the detection of CAV.
Authors: Cynthia K Rigsby; Sarah E McKenney; Kevin D Hill; Anjali Chelliah; Andrew J Einstein; B Kelly Han; Joshua D Robinson; Christina L Sammet; Timothy C Slesnick; Donald P Frush Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2018-01-01
Authors: D Beitzke; V Berger-Kulemann; V Schöpf; S Unterhumer; E Spitzer; G M Feuchtner; M Gyöngyösi; K Uyanik-Uenal; A Zuckermann; C Loewe; F Wolf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-04-26 Impact factor: 5.315