Key result
CCTA reduces MI risk ~46% vs. noninvasive functional testing in chronic coronary syndromes.
Why the study?
It is unknown to what extent study-specific characteristics yield different conclusions when comparing CCTA to noninvasive functional testing in chronic coronary syndromes.
Does CCTA reduce myocardial infarction in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndromes compared to noninvasive functional testing?
Meta-Analysis (n=401,305)
Yes
Does CCTA reduce myocardial infarction in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndromes compared to noninvasive functional testing?
Effect estimate: OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.62)
p-value: p=<.001
While CCTA is associated with a lower overall risk of MI compared to functional testing in chronic coronary syndromes, this benefit is driven by non-randomized studies and is diminished in randomized trials with central outcome assessment.
CCTA may reduce MI versus functional testing in chronic coronary syndromes; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spirito et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) (n=401,305). Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) vs. noninvasive functional testing was evaluated on myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.62, p=<.001). Coronary computed tomography angiography reduced the relative risk of myocardial infarction by 46% (OR 0.54) compared to noninvasive functional testing in patients with chronic coronary syndromes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: