Stress CTP + CCTA vs. CCTA alone for chest pain evaluation :- Medznat
EN | RU
EN | RU

Help Support

By clicking the "Submit" button, you accept the terms of the User Agreement, including those related to the processing of your personal data. More about data processing in the Policy.
Back

Prognostic value of stress CTP + CCTA vs. CCTA alone in coronary artery disease

Coronary artery disease Coronary artery disease
Coronary artery disease Coronary artery disease

This systematic review and meta-analysis explored the prognostic role of stress computed tomography perfusion (CTP) in patients with suspected or confirmed coronary artery disease.

See All

Key take away

Integrating stress CTP with CCTA minimizes redundant invasive coronary angiography and increases revascularization rates without markedly impacting MACE, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization.

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis explored the prognostic role of stress computed tomography perfusion (CTP) in patients with suspected or confirmed coronary artery disease.

Method

Studies involving the evaluation of chest pain using CTP + coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)—either as a standalone approach or compared to CCTA alone—were included. The key analysis focused on the comparison between CCTA + CTP and CCTA alone, while the secondary analysis evaluated the outcomes across all the studies, whether two-arm or single-arm.

Result

In total, 7 studies were incorporated in the analysis—2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 observational studies—totaling 3,587 volunteers (2,101 evaluated with CTP + CCTA and 1,486 with CCTA alone). In the primary analysis, which involved 4 studies with a median follow-up of 17 months, no vital differences were noted in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (odds ratio [OR] 1.19) and all-cause mortality (OR 0.41).

However, those managed with CCTA alone exhibited higher rates of invasive coronary angiography (OR 2.42) and invasive coronary angiography without subsequent revascularization (OR 2.85). In contrast, CCTA + CTP patients had a higher rate of invasive coronary angiography with subsequent revascularization (OR 0.39). No prominent differences in recurrent myocardial infarction (OR 0.94) or unplanned revascularization (OR 0.69) were witnessed between the two groups. These findings were reported to be consistent in the secondary analysis.

Conclusion

A coronary imaging approach incorporating perfusion assessment alongside anatomical evaluation yielded similar outcomes to CCTA alone for MACEs, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularizations over 2 years. While patients evaluated with CTP had fewer invasive coronary angiography overall, those who underwent the procedure had a higher likelihood of stent placement.

 

Source:

European Radiology

Article:

Coronary CT angiography alone versus with CT perfusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing approaches for chest pain

Authors:

Fabrizio D'Ascenzo et al.

Comments (0)

You want to delete this comment? Please mention comment Invalid Text Content Text Content cannot me more than 1000 Something Went Wrong Cancel Confirm Confirm Delete Hide Replies View Replies View Replies en
Try: