Key result
Treatment recommendations based on the SYNTAX score 2020 derived from CCTA showed substantial agreement (84.2% concordance, Cohen's κ 0.672) with those derived from invasive coronary angiography for 5-year mortality.
Why the study?
The diagnostic performance of the SYNTAX score 2020 when calculated using coronary computed tomography angiography remained unknown.
Does the SYNTAX score 2020 derived from CCTA provide similar treatment recommendations compared to ICA in patients with three-vessel disease?
Observational (n=57)
Blinded analysts
Yes
Does the SYNTAX score 2020 derived from CCTA provide similar treatment recommendations compared to ICA in patients with three-vessel disease?
CCTA-derived SYNTAX score 2020 shows moderate to substantial agreement with ICA-derived scores for guiding revascularization decisions in patients with three-vessel disease.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CCTA-derived SS-2020 recommendations in three-vessel disease need ICA validation; leaves open whether CCTA can guide revascularization decisions.
Purpose The diagnostic performance of the SYNTAX score 2020 (SS-2020) when calculated using CCTA remains unknown. This study aimed to compare treatment recommendations based on the SS-2020 derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Methods This interim analysis included 57 of the planned 114 patients with de-novo three-vessel disease, with or without left main coronary artery disease, enrolled in the ongoing FASTTRACK CABG trial. The anatomical SYNTAX scores derived from ICA or CCTA were evaluated by two separate teams of blinded core-lab analysts. Treatment recommendations were based on a maximal individual absolute risk difference in all-cause mortality between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) of 4.5% ([predicted PCI mortality] – [predicted CABG mortality]). The level of agreement was evaluated with Bland-Altman plots and Cohen’s Kappa. Results The mean age was 66.2±9.2 years and 89.5% of patients were male. Mean anatomical SYNTAX scores derived from ICA and CCTA were 35.1±11.5 and 35.6±11.4 (p=0.751), respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis showed mean differences of -0.26 and -0.93, with standard deviation of 3.69 and 5.23, for 5- and 10-year all-cause mortality, respectively. The concordance in recommended treatment for 5- and 10-year mortalities were 84.2% (48/57 patients) and 80.7% (46/57 patients), with Cohen’s κ coefficients of 0.672 and 0.551. Conclusion There was moderate to substantial agreement between treatment recommendations based on the SS-2020 derived using CCTA and ICA, suggesting that CCTA could be used as an alternative to ICA when making decisions regarding the modality of revascularization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Masuda et al. (2023) conducted an observational in De-novo three-vessel disease with or without left main coronary artery disease (n=57). Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) vs. Invasive Coronary Angiography (ICA) was evaluated on Concordance in recommended treatment for 5-year mortality (Cohen's κ 0.672, 95% CI 0.574-0.770). Treatment recommendations based on the SYNTAX score 2020 derived from CCTA showed substantial agreement (84.2% concordance, Cohen's κ 0.672) with those derived from invasive coronary angiography for 5-year mortality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: