Coronary computed tomographic angiography and exercise electrocardiography: a great match or unequal partners?The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology

[Why Coronary CTA will affect the diagnosis and management of stable coronary artery disease?]

Until recently, the optimal work-up of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) was based on non-invasive functional tests. Coronary CTA (CCTA) now challenges this standard work-up due to its efficacy to exclude significant coronary artery disease. Current indications for CCTA include symptomatic patients with intermediate pre-test probability of CAD with altered ECG (LBBB, repolarization abnormalities) rendering stress tests useless or patients unable to achieve sustained stress effort, and patients with indeterminate or uninterpretable results on ischemic work-up. A more agressive position is to consider CCTA as the cornerstone of patient management because the limitations and pitfalls of non-invasive techniques open the door to an alternative diagnostic imaging technique, either alone, or in combination with other Imaging techniques after reorganizing the sequence of imaging work-up. Without dismissing the dogma of initial détection of CAD along with prognostic stratification using functional tests, the recent availability of a minimally invasive anatomical test in the management of patients with stress angina, given the known limitations of traditional tests, changes the standard work-up algorithms. This suggests that the diagnostic work-up of patients with CAD is likely to be modified to increase the rôle of CCTA.

Persistent reservations against contradicted percutaneous coronary intervention indications: citation content analysis

BACKGROUND

Two large trials, Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) and Occluded Artery Trial (OAT), found no benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy in chronic stable coronary artery disease and chronic total occlusion.

METHODS

We examined the stance of articles citing COURAGE and OAT to determine whether some authors continue to defend PCI despite this evidence, what persisting counterarguments are raised to express reservations, and whether specific characteristics of the citations are associated with reservations. We evaluated all citing articles entered in the Web of Science until February 1, 2008. Specific characteristics were recorded for each eligible citation, and a citation content analysis was performed. Counterarguments were categorized on participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 54 articles citing COURAGE and 33 articles citing OAT, 10 (19%) and 5 (15%), respectively, had an overall reserved stance. Alluded reservations included lack of power, eroded effects from crossover, selective inclusion and exclusion of specific types of patients, suboptimal clinical setting, use of bare-metal stents, suspiciously good results in the conservative treatment arm, and suboptimal outcome choices or definitions. Reserved articles were more likely than unreserved ones to have an interventional cardiologist as corresponding author (odds ratio 5.2, 95% confidence interval 1.6-17.1; P = .007) and to be commentaries focusing on one of these trials (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0-11.0; P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite strong randomized evidence, a fraction of the literature, mostly corresponded by interventional cardiologists, continues to raise reservations about recently contradicted indications of PCI.