Relative clinical value of coronary computed tomography and stress echocardiography-guided management of stable chest pain patients: a propensity-matched analysis

Impact of design characteristics among studies comparing coronary computed tomography angiography to noninvasive functional testing in chronic coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is widely adopted to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). However, it is unknown to which extent study-specific characteristics yield different conclusions.

METHODS

We summarized non-randomized and randomized studies comparing CCTA and noninvasive functional testing for CCS with information on the outcome of myocardial infarction (MI). We evaluated the differential effect according to study characteristics using random-effect meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustments.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (8 non-randomized, 7 randomized) were included. CCTA was associated with decrease in relative (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.62, P < .001) and absolute MI risk (risk difference (RD) -0.4%, 95%CI -0.6 to -0.1, P = .005). The results remained consistent among the non-randomized (RD -0.4%, 95%CI -0.7 to -0.1, P=.029), but not among the randomized trials where there was no difference in the observed risk (RD 0.2%, 95%CI -0.6 to 0.1, P = .158). CCTA was not associated with MI reduction in studies with clinical outcome definition (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.44, P = .212), research driven follow-up (OR 0.54, 95%CI 0.24 to 1.21, P = .090), central event assessment (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.21 to 1.86, P = .207), outcome adjudication (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.24 to 2.23, P = .178), or at low-risk of bias (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.24 to 2.23, P = .178).

CONCLUSIONS

Among studies of any design, CCTA was associated with lower risk of MI in CCS compared to noninvasive functional testing. This benefit was diminished among studies with clinical outcome definition, central outcome assessment/adjudication or at low-risk of bias.

The year 2020 in the European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging: part I

The European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging was launched in 2012 and has during these 9 years become one of the leading multimodality cardiovascular imaging journals. The journal is currently ranked as number 20 among all cardiovascular journals. Our journal is well established as one of the top cardiovascular journals and is the most important cardiovascular imaging journal in Europe. The most important studies published in our Journal in 2020 will be highlighted in two reports. Part I of the review will focus on studies about myocardial function and risk prediction, myocardial ischaemia, and emerging techniques in cardiovascular imaging, while Part II will focus on valvular heart disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and congenital heart disease.