Coronary computed tomography angiography demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 68% for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease in patients referred for TAVI.
Meta-Analysis (n=2,533)
Does coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) improve the diagnostic evaluation of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)?
Routine CCTA in the pre-TAVI workup has excellent diagnostic accuracy for obstructive CAD and could safely avoid invasive coronary angiography in approximately 41% of patients.
Effect estimate: DOR 60 (95% CI 30-121)
Absolute Event Rate: 97% vs 68%
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for the evaluation of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched for studies reporting accuracy of CCTA for the evaluation of obstructive CAD compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the reference standard. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. A bivariate random effects model was used to analyze, pool, and plot the diagnostic performance measurements across studies. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive ( + LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and hierarchical summary ROC curve (HSROC) were evaluated. Prospero registration number: CRD42021252527. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (2533 patients) were included. In the intention-to-diagnose patient-level analysis, sensitivity and specificity for CCTA were 97% (95% CI: 94-98%) and 68% (95% CI: 56-68%), respectively, and + LR and -LR were 3.0 (95% CI: 2.1-4.3) and 0.05 (95% CI: 0.03 - 0.09), with DOR equal to 60 (95% CI: 30-121). The area under the HSROC curve was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98). No significant difference in sensitivity was found between single-heartbeat and other CT scanners (96% (95% CI: 90 - 99%) vs. 97% (95% CI: 94-98%) respectively; p = 0.37), whereas the specificity of single-heartbeat scanners was higher (82% (95% CI: 66-92%) vs. 60% (95% CI: 46 - 72%) respectively; p < 0.0001). Routine CCTA in the pre-TAVI workup could save 41% (95% CI: 34 - 47%) of ICAs if a disease prevalence of 40% is assumed. CONCLUSIONS: CCTA proved an excellent diagnostic accuracy for assessing obstructive CAD in patients referred for TAVI; the use of single-heartbeat CT scanners can further improve these findings. KEY POINTS: • CCTA proved to have an excellent diagnostic accuracy for assessing obstructive CAD in patients referred for TAVI. • Routine CCTA in the pre-TAVI workup could save more than 40% of ICAs. • Single-heartbeat CT scanners had higher specificity than others in the assessment of obstructive CAD in patients referred for TAVI.
Gatti et al. (Tue,) conducted a meta-analysis in Obstructive coronary artery disease in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (n=2,533). Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) vs. Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was evaluated on Patient-level accuracy of CCTA to identify obstructive CAD (sensitivity and specificity) (DOR 60, 95% CI 30-121). Coronary computed tomography angiography demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 68% for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease in patients referred for TAVI.