Csilla Celeng1, Tim Leiner2, Pál Maurovich-Horvat3, Béla Merkely3, Pim de Jong2, Jan W Dankbaar2, Hendrik W van Es4, Brian B Ghoshhajra5, Udo Hoffmann5, Richard A P Takx6. 1. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: c.celeng@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. MTA-SE Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. 4. Department of Radiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. 5. Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands; Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis determined the diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA), CT myocardial perfusion (CTP), fractional flow reserve CT (FFRCT), the transluminal attenuation gradient (TAG), and their combined use with CTA versus FFR as a reference standard for detection of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: CTA provides excellent anatomic, albeit limited functional information for the evaluation of CAD. Recently, various functional CT techniques emerged to assess the hemodynamic consequences of CAD. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed in adherence to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from inception until September 7, 2017. Bayesian random effects analysis was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of the index tests and compare them with the FFR as a reference standard. Analyses were performed on vessel and patient levels. Because CTA has excellent sensitivity, specificity was considered most relevant. Individual FFRCT values were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 54 articles and 5,330 patients were included. At vessel level, pooled specificity of CTP (0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76 to 0.93), FFRCT (0.78; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.83) and TAG (0.77; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.89) were substantially higher than that of CTA (0.61; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.68). The addition of FFRCT, CTP, and TAG to CTA resulted in high to excellent specificities (0.80 to 0.92). The summary receiver-operating characteristic curve at vessel level yielded superior diagnostic accuracy for CTP, FFRCT, and combined CTA and CTP, compared with CTA. A subanalysis of on-site versus off-site FFRCT revealed no substantial differences between the sensitivity (0.84 vs. 0.85) and specificity (0.80 vs. 0.73) of the 2 techniques. In a second subanalysis, dynamic CTP showed higher sensitivity (0.85 vs. 0.72), but had a lower specificity (0.81 vs. 0.90) than static CTP. CONCLUSIONS: CTP and FFRCT demonstrated a substantial improvement in the identification of hemodynamically significant CAD compared with CTA; therefore, their integration to clinical workflow before revascularization is recommended.
OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis determined the diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA), CT myocardial perfusion (CTP), fractional flow reserve CT (FFRCT), the transluminal attenuation gradient (TAG), and their combined use with CTA versus FFR as a reference standard for detection of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND:CTA provides excellent anatomic, albeit limited functional information for the evaluation of CAD. Recently, various functional CT techniques emerged to assess the hemodynamic consequences of CAD. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed in adherence to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from inception until September 7, 2017. Bayesian random effects analysis was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of the index tests and compare them with the FFR as a reference standard. Analyses were performed on vessel and patient levels. Because CTA has excellent sensitivity, specificity was considered most relevant. Individual FFRCT values were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 54 articles and 5,330 patients were included. At vessel level, pooled specificity of CTP (0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76 to 0.93), FFRCT (0.78; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.83) and TAG (0.77; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.89) were substantially higher than that of CTA (0.61; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.68). The addition of FFRCT, CTP, and TAG to CTA resulted in high to excellent specificities (0.80 to 0.92). The summary receiver-operating characteristic curve at vessel level yielded superior diagnostic accuracy for CTP, FFRCT, and combined CTA and CTP, compared with CTA. A subanalysis of on-site versus off-site FFRCT revealed no substantial differences between the sensitivity (0.84 vs. 0.85) and specificity (0.80 vs. 0.73) of the 2 techniques. In a second subanalysis, dynamic CTP showed higher sensitivity (0.85 vs. 0.72), but had a lower specificity (0.81 vs. 0.90) than static CTP. CONCLUSIONS:CTP and FFRCT demonstrated a substantial improvement in the identification of hemodynamically significant CAD compared with CTA; therefore, their integration to clinical workflow before revascularization is recommended.
Authors: Gianluca Pontone; Alexia Rossi; Marco Guglielmo; Marc R Dweck; Oliver Gaemperli; Koen Nieman; Francesca Pugliese; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Alessia Gimelli; Bernard Cosyns; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 9.130
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
Authors: Arlene Sirajuddin; S Mojdeh Mirmomen; Seth J Kligerman; Daniel W Groves; Allen P Burke; Faraz Kureshi; Charles S White; Andrew E Arai Journal: Radiographics Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Khaled M Abdelrahman; Marcus Y Chen; Amit K Dey; Renu Virmani; Aloke V Finn; Ramzi Y Khamis; Andrew D Choi; James K Min; Michelle C Williams; Andrew J Buckler; Charles A Taylor; Campbell Rogers; Habib Samady; Charalambos Antoniades; Leslee J Shaw; Matthew J Budoff; Udo Hoffmann; Ron Blankstein; Jagat Narula; Nehal N Mehta Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 24.094