Jan Menke1, Jörg Kowalski2. 1. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany. Menke-J@T-Online.de. 2. Department of Cardiology, Dr. Lauterbach-Klinik, Heinrich-Mann-Strasse 5, 36448, Bad Liebenstein, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To meta-analyze diagnostic accuracy, test yield and utility of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in coronary artery disease (CAD) by an intention-to-diagnose approach with inclusion of unevaluable results. METHODS: Four databases were searched from 1/2005 to 3/2013 for prospective studies that used 16-320-row or dual-source CTs and provided 3 × 2 patient-level data of CCTA (positive, negative, or unevaluable) versus catheter angiography (positive or negative) for diagnosing ≥50% coronary stenoses. A Bayesian multivariate 3 × 2 random-effects meta-analysis considered unevaluable CCTAs. RESULTS: Thirty studies (3422 patients) were included. Compared to 16-40 row CT, test yield and accuracy of CCTA has significantly increased with ≥64-row CT (P < 0.05). In ≥64-row CT, about 2.5% (95%-CI, 0.9-4.8%) of diseased patients and 7.5% (4.5-11.2%) of non-diseased patients had unevaluable CCTAs. A positive likelihood ratio of 8.9 (6.1-13.5) indicated moderate suitability for identifying CAD. A negative likelihood ratio of 0.022 (0.01-0.04) indicated excellent suitability for excluding CAD. Unevaluable CCTAs had an equivocal likelihood ratio of 0.42 (0.22-0.71). In the utility analysis, CCTA was useful at intermediate pre-test probabilities (16-70%). CONCLUSIONS: CCTA is useful at intermediate CAD pre-test probabilities. Positive CCTAs require verification to confirm CAD, unevaluable CCTAs require alternative diagnostics, and negative CCTAs exclude obstructive CAD with high certainty. KEY POINTS: • This 3 × 2 Bayesian meta-analysis included unevaluable CCTAs with intention-to-diagnose. • CCTA is currently useful at intermediate CAD pre-test probabilities. • Unevaluable CCTAs should not, generally, be treated as if they are positive. • Positive CCTAs require verification by other methods to confirm CAD. • Negative CCTAs exclude CAD with high certainty.
OBJECTIVES: To meta-analyze diagnostic accuracy, test yield and utility of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in coronary artery disease (CAD) by an intention-to-diagnose approach with inclusion of unevaluable results. METHODS: Four databases were searched from 1/2005 to 3/2013 for prospective studies that used 16-320-row or dual-source CTs and provided 3 × 2 patient-level data of CCTA (positive, negative, or unevaluable) versus catheter angiography (positive or negative) for diagnosing ≥50% coronary stenoses. A Bayesian multivariate 3 × 2 random-effects meta-analysis considered unevaluable CCTAs. RESULTS: Thirty studies (3422 patients) were included. Compared to 16-40 row CT, test yield and accuracy of CCTA has significantly increased with ≥64-row CT (P < 0.05). In ≥64-row CT, about 2.5% (95%-CI, 0.9-4.8%) of diseased patients and 7.5% (4.5-11.2%) of non-diseased patients had unevaluable CCTAs. A positive likelihood ratio of 8.9 (6.1-13.5) indicated moderate suitability for identifying CAD. A negative likelihood ratio of 0.022 (0.01-0.04) indicated excellent suitability for excluding CAD. Unevaluable CCTAs had an equivocal likelihood ratio of 0.42 (0.22-0.71). In the utility analysis, CCTA was useful at intermediate pre-test probabilities (16-70%). CONCLUSIONS:CCTA is useful at intermediate CAD pre-test probabilities. Positive CCTAs require verification to confirm CAD, unevaluable CCTAs require alternative diagnostics, and negative CCTAs exclude obstructive CAD with high certainty. KEY POINTS: • This 3 × 2 Bayesian meta-analysis included unevaluable CCTAs with intention-to-diagnose. • CCTA is currently useful at intermediate CAD pre-test probabilities. • Unevaluable CCTAs should not, generally, be treated as if they are positive. • Positive CCTAs require verification by other methods to confirm CAD. • Negative CCTAs exclude CAD with high certainty.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coronary CT angiography; Meta-analysis; Predictive value of tests; Sensitivity and specificity; Utility
Authors: Lillian Sung; Jill Hayden; Mark L Greenberg; Gideon Koren; Brian M Feldman; George A Tomlinson Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: S Goodacre; P Thokala; C Carroll; J W Stevens; J Leaviss; M Al Khalaf; P Collinson; F Morris; P Evans; J Wang Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2013 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Adam M Alessio; Michael Bindschadler; Janet M Busey; William P Shuman; James H Caldwell; Kelley R Branch Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: S Baumann; D Overhoff; C Tesche; G Korosoglou; S Kelle; M Nassar; S J Buss; F Andre; M Renker; U J Schoepf; I Akin; S Waldeck; S O Schoenberg; D Lossnitzer Journal: Herz Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Marc R Dweck; Michelle C Williams; Alastair J Moss; David E Newby; Zahi A Fayad Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michelle C Williams; Saeed Mirsadraee; Marc R Dweck; Nicholas W Weir; Alison Fletcher; Christophe Lucatelli; Tom MacGillivray; Saroj K Golay; Nicholas L Cruden; Peter A Henriksen; Neal Uren; Graham McKillop; João A C Lima; John H Reid; Edwin J R van Beek; Dilip Patel; David E Newby Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 5.315