Key result
Hybrid CCTA/MPI shows only modest agreement with invasive angiography for post-CABG revascularization decisions.
Why the study?
Does hybrid CCTA/MPI improve agreement with invasive coronary angiography for guiding revascularization decisions in symptomatic patients with prior CABG?
Observational (n=115)
Blinded to other Heart teams and outcomes
Does hybrid CCTA/MPI improve agreement with invasive coronary angiography for guiding revascularization decisions in symptomatic patients with prior CABG?
Effect estimate: κ 0.32 (95% CI 0.14-0.51)
Absolute Event Rate: 69.6% vs 66.1%
p-value: p=<0.001
Non-invasive imaging strategies, including hybrid CCTA/MPI, show poor agreement with invasive coronary angiography for revascularization decisions in symptomatic post-CABG patients, questioning their utility as gatekeepers.
Background Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) are guideline-recommended to assist in clinical decision-making in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, the value of combining CCTA and MPI for guiding revascularization decision-making in post-CABG patients with recurrent ischemic symptoms remains unexplored. In this study, we compared Heart Team strategies for revascularization based on CCTA and MPI as standalone and hybrid CCTA/MPI imaging, to strategies guided by invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Methods We included symptomatic patients with prior CABG who underwent CCTA and MPI (single-photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography or stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging) preceding ICA. Simulated Heart Teams, blinded to other Heart teams and outcomes, performed revascularization decision-making based on conventional CCTA, MPI and a hybrid CCTA/MPI strategy (non-invasive Heart Team) or based on ICA (invasive Heart Team). The primary outcome was the Cohen’s kappa agreement (κ) between non-invasive and invasive Heart Teams. Results A total of 115 patients (mean age 73±7 years; 99 [86%] male) were included. Revascularization was recommended in 96 patients (83.5%) by CCTA, 92 patients (80.0%) by MPI, 80 patients (69.6%) by hybrid CCTA/MPI and 76 patients (66.1%) by ICA. The agreements were significant but low for CCTA (κ: 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07-0.42], P=0.003) and MPI (κ: 0.27 [95% CI: 0.09-0.48], P=0.002) compared to ICA, with only a modest increase when using the hybrid non-invasive imaging strategy (κ: 0.32 [95% CI: 0.14-0.51], P<0.001). Conclusions In patients with recurrent ischemic symptoms after CABG, Heart Team assessment of conventional CCTA and MPI yielded similarly poor agreements with revascularization strategies based on ICA, with only a modest improvement observed when using a hybrid CCTA/MPI approach. Overall, non-invasive imaging alone appears insufficient to accurately guide treatment strategies in patients with prior CABG, and their use as gatekeeping for ICA in these patients should be questioned.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoek et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with recurrent ischemic symptoms (n=115). Hybrid CCTA/MPI strategy vs. Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was evaluated on Cohen's kappa agreement (κ) between non-invasive and invasive Heart Teams (κ 0.32, 95% CI 0.14-0.51, p=<0.001). A hybrid CCTA/MPI strategy yielded only modest agreement with invasive coronary angiography for guiding revascularization in patients with prior CABG (κ 0.32; 95% CI 0.14-0.51; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: