Key result
Adding COME-CCT-PTP to CTA improves diagnostic accuracy for obstructive CAD over CTA alone.
Why the study?
The diagnostic accuracy of combining pretest probability with computed tomography angiography for diagnosing obstructive coronary artery disease had not yet been determined.
Does combining the COME-CCT-PTP calculator with CTA improve diagnostic accuracy for obstructive CAD in patients with stable chest pain compared to either model alone?
Meta-Analysis (n=5,332)
Blinded
Yes
Does combining the COME-CCT-PTP calculator with CTA improve diagnostic accuracy for obstructive CAD in patients with stable chest pain compared to either model alone?
Combining a novel pretest probability calculator with cardiac CT angiography significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy for obstructive coronary artery disease across all chest pain subtypes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May refine testing decisions in stable chest pain; extends integrated probability models in Level 1 meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: Combining pretest probability (PTP) with computed tomography angiography (CTA) for diagnosing obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) has not yet been determined. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of PTP calculation alone and with CTA for diagnosing CAD. METHODS: A total of 65 prospective diagnostic accuracy studies of patients clinically referred to invasive coronary angiography with stable chest pain were included in this international collaborative individual patient data Collaborative Meta-Analysis of Cardiac CT (COME-CCT) meta-analysis. Mixed-effects logistic regression with a data set-specific random intercept for clustering was applied to 4 models: the traditional Diamond-Forrester models, a PTP model based on the COME-CCT data (termed COME-CCT-PTP calculator), a CTA alone model, and a combined COME-CCT-PTP with CTA model. RESULTS: Individual patient data from 5,332 patients with clinically indicated invasive coronary angiography from 22 countries were included. The COME-CCT-PTP calculator was more accurate than the original Diamond-Forrester model (AUC: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.66-0.69 vs 0.63; 95% CI: 0.62-0.65). The COME-CCT-PTP with CTA model significantly improved accuracy compared with either model alone (AUC: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.85-0.87 vs 0.81; 95% CI: 0.80-0.82). The improved prediction was consistent in decision curve analysis with an increased net benefit for all chest pain subtypes and was almost equally seen in patients with typical or atypical angina (0.85; 95% CI: 0.84-0.86) and nonanginal or other chest discomfort (0.88; 95% CI: 0.86-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Combining the COME-CCT-PTP calculator with CTA provides more accurate prediction than the PTP or CTA alone for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD, for all chest pain subtypes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wieske et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=5,332). COME-CCT-PTP calculator combined with CTA vs. CTA alone was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (AUC) for obstructive CAD (AUC 0.86, 95% CI 0.85-0.87). Combining the COME-CCT-PTP calculator with CTA improved diagnostic accuracy for obstructive coronary artery disease compared to CTA alone.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: