Diagnostic performance of CCTA and CTP imaging for clinically suspected in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis.

Jorge Dahdal, Ruurt A Jukema, Sharon Remmelzwaal, Pieter G Raijmakers, Pim van der Harst, Marco Guglielmo, Maarten J Cramer, Steven A J Chamuleau, Pepijn A van Diemen, Paul Knaapen, Ibrahim Danad
{"title":"Diagnostic performance of CCTA and CTP imaging for clinically suspected in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Jorge Dahdal, Ruurt A Jukema, Sharon Remmelzwaal, Pieter G Raijmakers, Pim van der Harst, Marco Guglielmo, Maarten J Cramer, Steven A J Chamuleau, Pepijn A van Diemen, Paul Knaapen, Ibrahim Danad","doi":"10.1016/j.jcct.2024.10.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":94071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2024.10.014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
CCTA 和 CTP 成像对临床疑似支架内再狭窄的诊断性能:荟萃分析
目的:本研究旨在进行一项荟萃分析,评估冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影术(CCTA)和在CCTA基础上结合计算机断层扫描灌注术(CTP)的混合方法(CCTA + CTP)在检测血管造影定义的支架内再狭窄(ISR)方面的诊断性能:方法:对文章进行全面检索,共发现 18,513 项研究。在去除重复、标题/摘要筛选和全文审阅后,纳入了 17 项 CCTA 和 3 项 CCTA + CTP 研究。只有使用≥64切片多载体计算机断层扫描(CT)的研究才符合条件:结果:每位患者的 ISR 发生率为 43%,其中 92% 的支架可通过 CCTA 完全解读。元分析显示,每个支架的 CCTA(n = 2674)灵敏度为 90 %(95 % CI;84-94 %),特异性为 89 %(95 % CI;86-92 %),阳性似然比为 7.17(95 % CI;5.24-9.61),阴性似然比为 0.17(95 % CI;0.10-0.25),诊断几率比为 45.7(95 % CI;22.71-82.43)。其他敏感性分析显示,支架直径或支架厚度对 CCTA 的诊断率没有影响。与CCTA相比,CCTA + CTP(n = 752)对每个支架的诊断效果没有差异:结论:利用目前使用的扫描仪,CCTA 和 CCTA + CTP 在评估支架内再狭窄方面具有很高的诊断性能。因此,既往支架植入史不应成为临床疑似患者不使用这些方法的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Highlights of the nineteenth annual scientific meeting of the society of cardiovascular computed tomography. Asessing the feasibility and accuracy of an on-site prototype workstation in assessing CT derived fractional flow reserve in severe aortic stenosis. Diagnostic performance of CCTA and CTP imaging for clinically suspected in-stent restenosis: A meta-analysis. Cost-effectiveness of ultrahigh-resolution photon-counting detector coronary CT angiography for the evaluation of stable chest pain. Association of coronary inflammation with plaque vulnerability and fractional flow reserve in coronary artery disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1