Journal of thoracic imaging · 2018
Diagnostic Accuracy of Coronary Computed Tomography Before Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Chaikriangkrai Kongkiat, Jhun Hye Yeon, Shantha Ghanshyam Palamaner Subash, Abdulhak Aref Bin, Tandon Rudhir, Alqasrawi Musab, Klappa Anthony, Pancholy Samir, Deshmukh Abhishek, Bhama Jay, Sigurdsson Gardar
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In aortic stenosis patients referred for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR), the evidence of diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has been limited. The objective of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA for significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients referred for AVR using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the gold standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched databases for all diagnostic studies of CCTA in patients referred for AVR, which reported diagnostic testing characteristics on patient-based analysis required to pool summary sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, and negative-likelihood ratio. Significant CAD in both CCTA and ICA was defined by >50% stenosis in any coronary artery, coronary stent, or bypass graft.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies evaluated 1498 patients (mean age, 74 y; 47% men; 76% transcatheter AVR). The pooled prevalence of significant stenosis determined by ICA was 43%. Hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated a summary area under curve of 0.96. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive-likelihood and negative-likelihood ratios of CCTA in identifying significant stenosis determined by ICA were 95%, 79%, 4.48, and 0.06, respectively. In subgroup analysis, the diagnostic profiles of CCTA were comparable between surgical and transcatheter AVR.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher prevalence of significant CAD in patients with aortic stenosis than with other valvular heart diseases, our meta-analysis has shown that CCTA has a suitable diagnostic accuracy profile as a gatekeeper test for ICA. Our study illustrates a need for further study of the potential role of CCTA in preoperative planning for AVR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched databases for all diagnostic studies of CCTA in patients referred for AVR, which reported diagnostic testing characteristics on patient-based analysis required to pool summary sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, and negative-likelihood ratio. Significant CAD in both CCTA and ICA was defined by >50% stenosis in any coronary artery, coronary stent, or bypass graft.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies evaluated 1498 patients (mean age, 74 y; 47% men; 76% transcatheter AVR). The pooled prevalence of significant stenosis determined by ICA was 43%. Hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated a summary area under curve of 0.96. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive-likelihood and negative-likelihood ratios of CCTA in identifying significant stenosis determined by ICA were 95%, 79%, 4.48, and 0.06, respectively. In subgroup analysis, the diagnostic profiles of CCTA were comparable between surgical and transcatheter AVR.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher prevalence of significant CAD in patients with aortic stenosis than with other valvular heart diseases, our meta-analysis has shown that CCTA has a suitable diagnostic accuracy profile as a gatekeeper test for ICA. Our study illustrates a need for further study of the potential role of CCTA in preoperative planning for AVR.