Key result
The MultiFunction-CardioGram (MCG) device accurately detected relevant coronary artery stenosis (>70%) with a sensitivity of 91.2%, specificity of 84.6%, and a diagnostic odds ratio of 56.9 compared to quantitative coronary angiography.
Why the study?
Does the MultiFunction-CardioGram accurately detect relevant coronary artery stenosis (>70%) compared to quantitative coronary angiography in patients scheduled for coronary angiography?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,076)
Double-blind
Yes
Does the MultiFunction-CardioGram accurately detect relevant coronary artery stenosis (>70%) compared to quantitative coronary angiography in patients scheduled for coronary angiography?
Odds Ratio: 56.925 (95% CI 38.594–83.963)
p-value: p=<0.001
The MultiFunction-CardioGram demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for detecting relevant coronary stenosis compared to quantitative coronary angiography.
Supports MCG consideration for noninvasive stenosis detection; confirms high diagnostic accuracy versus QCA in meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: Accurate, non-invasive diagnosis of, and screening for, coronary artery disease (CAD) and restenosis after coronary revascularization has been a challenge due to either low sensitivity/specificity or relevant morbidity associated with current diagnostic modalities. METHODS: To assess sensitivity and specificity of a new computerized, multiphase, resting electrocardiogram analysis device (MultiFunction-CardioGram(sm) or MCG a.k.a. 3DMP) for the detection of relevant coronary stenosis (>70%), a meta-analysis of three published prospective trials performed in the US on patient data collected using the US manufactured device and analyzed using the US-based software and New York data analysis center from patients in the US, Germany, and Asia was completed. A total of 1076 patients from the three trials (US - 136; Germany - 751; Asia - 189) (average age 62 +/- 11.5, 65 for women, 60 for men) scheduled for coronary angiography, were included in the analysis. Patients enrolled in the trials may or may not have had prior angiography and/or coronary intervention. Angiographic results in all studies were classified for hemodynamically relevant stenosis (> 70%) by two US based angiographers independently. RESULTS: Hemodynamically relevant stenosis was diagnosed in 467 patients (43.4%). The device, after performing a frequency-domain, computational analysis of the resting ECG leads and computer-database comparison, calculated a coronary ischemia "severity" score from 0 to 20 for each patient. The severity score was significantly higher for patients with relevant coronary stenosis (5.4 +/- 1.8 vs. 1.7 +/- 2.1). The study device (using a cut-off score for relevant stenosis of 4.0) correctly classified 941 of the 1076 patients with or without relevant stenosis (sensitivity-91.2%; specificity-84.6%; NPV 0.942, PPV 0.777). Adjusted positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were 81.9% and 92.6%, respectively (ROC AUC = 0.881 [95% CI: 0.860-0.903]). Subgroup analysis showed no significant influence of sex, age, race/nationality, previous revascularization procedures, resting ECG morphology, or participating center on the device's diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: The new computerized, multiphase, resting ECG analysis device (MultiFunction-CardioGram(sm)) has been shown in this meta-analysis to safely and accurately identify patients with relevant coronary stenosis (>70%) with high sensitivity and specificity and high negative predictive value. Its potential use in the evaluation of symptomatic patients suspected to suffer from coronary disease/ischemia is discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Strobeck et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) (n=1,076). MultiFunction-CardioGram (MCG) vs. Quantitative Coronary Angiography was evaluated on Detection of hemodynamically relevant coronary artery stenosis (>70%) (OR 56.925, 95% CI 38.594-83.963, p=<0.001). The MultiFunction-CardioGram (MCG) device accurately detected relevant coronary artery stenosis (>70%) with a sensitivity of 91.2%, specificity of 84.6%, and a diagnostic odds ratio of 56.9 compared to quantitative coronary angiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: