Valeria Cantoni1, Roberta Green1, Wanda Acampa2, Mario Petretta3, Domenico Bonaduce3, Marco Salvatore4, Alberto Cuocolo5. 1. Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. 2. Institute of Biostructure and Bioimaging, National Council of Research, Naples, Italy. 3. Department of Translational Medicine, University Federico II, Naples, Italy. 4. IRCCS SDN, Naples, Italy. 5. Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. cuocolo@unina.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the long-term prognostic value of stress single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for adverse cardiovascular events in subjects with suspected or known coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus database between January 2000 and December 2014 for stress MPI and CCTA studies that followed up ≥ 100 subjects for ≥ 2.5 years and provided the unadjusted and/or adjusted hazard ratio (HR) at Cox regression analysis. Summary risk estimates for abnormal perfusion at MPI or ≥ 50% coronary stenosis at CCTA were derived in random effect regression analysis, and causes of heterogeneity were determined in meta-regression analysis. We identified 21 eligible articles (10 MPI and 11 CCTA) including 25,258 participants (13,484 in MPI and 11,774 in CCTA studies) with suspected or known coronary artery disease. Among the included publications, 8 MPI and 8 CCTA studies reported the HR for the occurrence of hard events (death and nonfatal myocardial infarction). The pooled HR was comparable for MPI and CCTA studies. The HR for the occurrence of a combined endpoint including revascularization as event was reported in 4 MPI and 6 CCTA studies. The pooled HR was higher for CCTA compared to MPI (P < .05) also when only MPI and CCTA studies with limited representation of prior CAD were considered. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term prognostic value of MPI and CCTA for the occurrence of hard events is similar. However, the association between event-free survival and CCTA is higher than MPI when coronary revascularization is included in the endpoint.
BACKGROUND: We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the long-term prognostic value of stress single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for adverse cardiovascular events in subjects with suspected or known coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus database between January 2000 and December 2014 for stress MPI and CCTA studies that followed up ≥ 100 subjects for ≥ 2.5 years and provided the unadjusted and/or adjusted hazard ratio (HR) at Cox regression analysis. Summary risk estimates for abnormal perfusion at MPI or ≥ 50% coronary stenosis at CCTA were derived in random effect regression analysis, and causes of heterogeneity were determined in meta-regression analysis. We identified 21 eligible articles (10 MPI and 11 CCTA) including 25,258 participants (13,484 in MPI and 11,774 in CCTA studies) with suspected or known coronary artery disease. Among the included publications, 8 MPI and 8 CCTA studies reported the HR for the occurrence of hard events (death and nonfatal myocardial infarction). The pooled HR was comparable for MPI and CCTA studies. The HR for the occurrence of a combined endpoint including revascularization as event was reported in 4 MPI and 6 CCTA studies. The pooled HR was higher for CCTA compared to MPI (P < .05) also when only MPI and CCTA studies with limited representation of prior CAD were considered. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term prognostic value of MPI and CCTA for the occurrence of hard events is similar. However, the association between event-free survival and CCTA is higher than MPI when coronary revascularization is included in the endpoint.
Authors: Robert C Hendel; Daniel S Berman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Paul A Heidenreich; Robert E Henkin; Patricia A Pellikka; Gerald M Pohost; Kim A Williams Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Svetlana Dougoud; Tobias A Fuchs; Julia Stehli; Olivier F Clerc; Ronny R Buechel; Bernhard A Herzog; Sebastian Leschka; Hatem Alkadhi; Philipp A Kaufmann; Oliver Gaemperli Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-22
Authors: Martin Hadamitzky; Franziska Hein; Tanja Meyer; Bernhard Bischoff; Stefan Martinoff; Albert Schömig; Jörg Hausleiter Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Matthew P Ostrom; Ambarish Gopal; Naser Ahmadi; Khurram Nasir; Eric Yang; Ioannis Kakadiaris; Ferdinand Flores; Song S Mao; Matthew J Budoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Jagat Narula; Y Chandrashekhar; Amir Ahmadi; Suhny Abbara; Daniel S Berman; Ron Blankstein; Jonathon Leipsic; David Newby; Edward D Nicol; Koen Nieman; Leslee Shaw; Todd C Villines; Michelle Williams; Harvey S Hecht Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2020-11-20