Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography · 2024
Diagnostic performance of CCTA and CTP imaging for clinically suspected in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dahdal Jorge, Jukema Ruurt A, Remmelzwaal Sharon, Raijmakers Pieter G, van der Harst Pim, Guglielmo Marco, Cramer Maarten J, Chamuleau Steven A J, van Diemen Pepijn A, Knaapen Paul, Danad Ibrahim
Аннотация
AIMS: The objective of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) and a hybrid approach that incorporates Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) in addition to CCTA (CCTA + CTP) for the detection of in-stent restenosis (ISR), as defined by angiography.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of articles identified 18,513 studies. After removing duplicates, title/abstract screening, and full-text review, 17 CCTA and 3 CCTA + CTP studies were included. Only studies using ≥64-slices multidetector computed tomography (CT) were considered eligible.
RESULTS: The per-patient ISR prevalence was 43 %, with 92 % of stents fully interpretable with CCTA. Meta-analysis exhibited a per-stent CCTA (n = 2674) sensitivity of 90 % (95 % CI; 84-94 %), specificity of 89 % (95 % CI; 86-92 %), positive likelihood ratio of 7.17 (95 % CI; 5.24-9.61), negative likelihood ratio of 0.17 (95 % CI; 0.10-0.25), and diagnostic odds ratio of 45.7 (95 % CI; 22.71-82.43). Additional sensitivity analyses revealed no influence of stent diameter or strut thickness on the diagnostic yield of CCTA. The per-stent diagnostic performance of CCTA + CTP (n = 752) did not show differences compared to CCTA.
CONCLUSIONS: With currently utilized scanners, CCTA and CCTA + CTP demonstrated high diagnostic performance for in-stent restenosis evaluation. Consequently, a history of previous stent implantation should not be an argument to preclude using these methods in clinically suspected patients.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of articles identified 18,513 studies. After removing duplicates, title/abstract screening, and full-text review, 17 CCTA and 3 CCTA + CTP studies were included. Only studies using ≥64-slices multidetector computed tomography (CT) were considered eligible.
RESULTS: The per-patient ISR prevalence was 43 %, with 92 % of stents fully interpretable with CCTA. Meta-analysis exhibited a per-stent CCTA (n = 2674) sensitivity of 90 % (95 % CI; 84-94 %), specificity of 89 % (95 % CI; 86-92 %), positive likelihood ratio of 7.17 (95 % CI; 5.24-9.61), negative likelihood ratio of 0.17 (95 % CI; 0.10-0.25), and diagnostic odds ratio of 45.7 (95 % CI; 22.71-82.43). Additional sensitivity analyses revealed no influence of stent diameter or strut thickness on the diagnostic yield of CCTA. The per-stent diagnostic performance of CCTA + CTP (n = 752) did not show differences compared to CCTA.
CONCLUSIONS: With currently utilized scanners, CCTA and CCTA + CTP demonstrated high diagnostic performance for in-stent restenosis evaluation. Consequently, a history of previous stent implantation should not be an argument to preclude using these methods in clinically suspected patients.