Sebastian M Haberkorn1, Sandra I Haberkorn1, Florian Bönner1, Malte Kelm1, Gareth Hopkin2, Steffen E Petersen3,4. 1. Department of Cardiology, Pneumology and Angiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 2. Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom. 3. William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. 4. Barts Heart Center, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS (National Health Service) Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Objectives: Guideline recommendations for patients with either a high or a low risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are clear. However, the evidence for initial risk stratification in patients with an intermediate risk of CAD is still unclear, despite the availability of multiple non-invasive assessment strategies. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for this population to provide more informed recommendations. Background: A meta-analysis was performed to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (pCMR) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) for the detection of relevant CAD. In contrast to previous work, this meta-analysis follows rigorous selection criteria in regards to the risk stratification and a narrowly prespecified definition of their invasive reference tests, resulting in unprecedentedly informative results for this reference group. Data Collection and Analysis: From the 5,634 studies identified, 1,306 relevant articles were selected after title screening and further abstract screening left 865 studies for full-text review. Of these, 47 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria resulting in a total sample size of 4,742 patients. Results: pCMR studies showed a superior sensitivity [0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.90) vs. 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61-0.81)], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) [38 (95% CI: 29-49) vs. 20 (95% CI: 9-46)] and an augmented post-test probability [negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.12-0.18) vs. 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.46)] as compared to DSE. Specificity was statistically indifferent [0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87) vs. 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.93)]. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that pCMR has a superior diagnostic test accuracy for relevant CAD compared to DSE. In patients with intermediate risk of CAD only pCMR can reliably rule out relevant stenosis. In this risk cohort, pCMR can be offered for initial risk stratification and guidance of further invasive treatment as it also rules in relevant CAD.
Objectives: Guideline recommendations for patients with either a high or a low risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are clear. However, the evidence for initial risk stratification in patients with an intermediate risk of CAD is still unclear, despite the availability of multiple non-invasive assessment strategies. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for this population to provide more informed recommendations. Background: A meta-analysis was performed to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (pCMR) and dobutaminestress echocardiography (DSE) for the detection of relevant CAD. In contrast to previous work, this meta-analysis follows rigorous selection criteria in regards to the risk stratification and a narrowly prespecified definition of their invasive reference tests, resulting in unprecedentedly informative results for this reference group. Data Collection and Analysis: From the 5,634 studies identified, 1,306 relevant articles were selected after title screening and further abstract screening left 865 studies for full-text review. Of these, 47 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria resulting in a total sample size of 4,742 patients. Results: pCMR studies showed a superior sensitivity [0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.90) vs. 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61-0.81)], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) [38 (95% CI: 29-49) vs. 20 (95% CI: 9-46)] and an augmented post-test probability [negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.12-0.18) vs. 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.46)] as compared to DSE. Specificity was statistically indifferent [0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87) vs. 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.93)]. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that pCMR has a superior diagnostic test accuracy for relevant CAD compared to DSE. In patients with intermediate risk of CAD only pCMR can reliably rule out relevant stenosis. In this risk cohort, pCMR can be offered for initial risk stratification and guidance of further invasive treatment as it also rules in relevant CAD.
Authors: Franz-Josef Neumann; Miguel Sousa-Uva; Anders Ahlsson; Fernando Alfonso; Adrian P Banning; Umberto Benedetto; Robert A Byrne; Jean-Philippe Collet; Volkmar Falk; Stuart J Head; Peter Jüni; Adnan Kastrati; Akos Koller; Steen D Kristensen; Josef Niebauer; Dimitrios J Richter; Petar M Seferovic; Dirk Sibbing; Giulio G Stefanini; Stephan Windecker; Rashmi Yadav; Michael O Zembala Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Stephan D Fihn; James C Blankenship; Karen P Alexander; John A Bittl; John G Byrne; Barbara J Fletcher; Gregg C Fonarow; Richard A Lange; Glenn N Levine; Thomas M Maddox; Srihari S Naidu; E Magnus Ohman; Peter K Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ibrahim Danad; Pieter G Raijmakers; Roel S Driessen; Jonathon Leipsic; Rekha Raju; Chris Naoum; Juhani Knuuti; Maija Mäki; Richard S Underwood; James K Min; Kimberly Elmore; Wynand J Stuijfzand; Niels van Royen; Igor I Tulevski; Aernout G Somsen; Marc C Huisman; Arthur A van Lingen; Martijn W Heymans; Peter M van de Ven; Cornelis van Kuijk; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Albert C van Rossum; Paul Knaapen Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Edward Hulten; Christopher Pickett; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Todd C Villines; Sara Petrillo; Marcelo F Di Carli; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lawrence H Young; Frans J Th Wackers; Deborah A Chyun; Janice A Davey; Eugene J Barrett; Raymond Taillefer; Gary V Heller; Ami E Iskandrian; Steven D Wittlin; Neil Filipchuk; Robert E Ratner; Silvio E Inzucchi Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 56.272