Juhani Knuuti1, Haitham Ballo1, Luis Eduardo Juarez-Orozco1, Antti Saraste1, Philippe Kolh2, Anne Wilhelmina Saskia Rutjes3,4, Peter Jüni5, Stephan Windecker6, Jeroen J Bax7, William Wijns8. 1. Turku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, Turku, Finland. 2. Department of Biomedical and Preclinical Sciences, University of Liège, Sart Tilman B 35, Liège, Belgium. 3. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Gesellschaftsstrasse 49, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Medicine, Applied Health Research Centre (AHRC), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 30 Bond St, ON, Toronto, Canada. 6. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Bern, Freiburgstrasse 4, Bern, Switzerland. 7. Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, The Netherlands. 8. The Lambe Institute for Translational Medicine and Curam, National University of Ireland, Galway and Saolta University Healthcare Group, University College Hospital Galway, Newcastle Rd, Galway, Ireland.
Abstract
Aims: To determine the ranges of pre-test probability (PTP) of coronary artery disease (CAD) in which stress electrocardiogram (ECG), stress echocardiography, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), positron emission tomography (PET), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can reclassify patients into a post-test probability that defines (>85%) or excludes (<15%) anatomically (defined by visual evaluation of invasive coronary angiography [ICA]) and functionally (defined by a fractional flow reserve [FFR] ≤0.8) significant CAD. Methods and results: A broad search in electronic databases until August 2017 was performed. Studies on the aforementioned techniques in >100 patients with stable CAD that utilized either ICA or ICA with FFR measurement as reference, were included. Study-level data was pooled using a hierarchical bivariate random-effects model and likelihood ratios were obtained for each technique. The PTP ranges for each technique to rule-in or rule-out significant CAD were defined. A total of 28 664 patients from 132 studies that used ICA as reference and 4131 from 23 studies using FFR, were analysed. Stress ECG can rule-in and rule-out anatomically significant CAD only when PTP is ≥80% (76-83) and ≤19% (15-25), respectively. Coronary computed tomography angiography is able to rule-in anatomic CAD at a PTP ≥58% (45-70) and rule-out at a PTP ≤80% (65-94). The corresponding PTP values for functionally significant CAD were ≥75% (67-83) and ≤57% (40-72) for CCTA, and ≥71% (59-81) and ≤27 (24-31) for ICA, demonstrating poorer performance of anatomic imaging against FFR. In contrast, functional imaging techniques (PET, stress CMR, and SPECT) are able to rule-in functionally significant CAD when PTP is ≥46-59% and rule-out when PTP is ≤34-57%. Conclusion: The various diagnostic modalities have different optimal performance ranges for the detection of anatomically and functionally significant CAD. Stress ECG appears to have very limited diagnostic power. The selection of a diagnostic technique for any given patient to rule-in or rule-out CAD should be based on the optimal PTP range for each test and on the assumed reference standard.
Aims: To determine the ranges of pre-test probability (PTP) of coronary artery disease (CAD) in which stress electrocardiogram (ECG), stress echocardiography, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), positron emission tomography (PET), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can reclassify patients into a post-test probability that defines (>85%) or excludes (<15%) anatomically (defined by visual evaluation of invasive coronary angiography [ICA]) and functionally (defined by a fractional flow reserve [FFR] ≤0.8) significant CAD. Methods and results: A broad search in electronic databases until August 2017 was performed. Studies on the aforementioned techniques in >100 patients with stable CAD that utilized either ICA or ICA with FFR measurement as reference, were included. Study-level data was pooled using a hierarchical bivariate random-effects model and likelihood ratios were obtained for each technique. The PTP ranges for each technique to rule-in or rule-out significant CAD were defined. A total of 28 664 patients from 132 studies that used ICA as reference and 4131 from 23 studies using FFR, were analysed. Stress ECG can rule-in and rule-out anatomically significant CAD only when PTP is ≥80% (76-83) and ≤19% (15-25), respectively. Coronary computed tomography angiography is able to rule-in anatomic CAD at a PTP ≥58% (45-70) and rule-out at a PTP ≤80% (65-94). The corresponding PTP values for functionally significant CAD were ≥75% (67-83) and ≤57% (40-72) for CCTA, and ≥71% (59-81) and ≤27 (24-31) for ICA, demonstrating poorer performance of anatomic imaging against FFR. In contrast, functional imaging techniques (PET, stress CMR, and SPECT) are able to rule-in functionally significant CAD when PTP is ≥46-59% and rule-out when PTP is ≤34-57%. Conclusion: The various diagnostic modalities have different optimal performance ranges for the detection of anatomically and functionally significant CAD. Stress ECG appears to have very limited diagnostic power. The selection of a diagnostic technique for any given patient to rule-in or rule-out CAD should be based on the optimal PTP range for each test and on the assumed reference standard.
Authors: W W Good; B Erem; B Zenger; J Coll-Font; J A Bergquist; D H Brooks; R S MacLeod Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Daniel E Forman; James A de Lemos; Leslee J Shaw; David B Reuben; Radmila Lyubarova; Eric D Peterson; John A Spertus; Susan Zieman; Marcel E Salive; Michael W Rich Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Brian Zenger; Wilson W Good; Jake A Bergquist; Brett M Burton; Jess D Tate; Leo Berkenbile; Vikas Sharma; Rob S MacLeod Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Hans R Figulla; Alexander Lauten; Lars S Maier; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Holger Thiele Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 5.594