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
Association between symptom characteristics and disease severity in patients suspected of coronary artery disease. Variability in technical fee billing for cardiac CT across congenital cardiac centers. Proposed resources required for a comprehensive program for CCT CHD imaging. Disrupting diastole toward consistency in systole: Iterations to increase CCTA protocol standardization. Automated quantitative assessment of pulmonary congestion from coronary CT angiography.
×
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