Key result
CCTA detects significant cardiac allograft vasculopathy with ~94% sensitivity compared with conventional angiography.
Why the study?
CCTA is currently not recommended for CAV screening due to limited accuracy reported by early studies, but technological advances may have improved its performance.
Does coronary computed tomography angiography accurately detect cardiac allograft vasculopathy compared to conventional coronary angiography or intravascular ultrasound in heart transplant patients?
Meta-Analysis (n=615)
Does coronary computed tomography angiography accurately detect cardiac allograft vasculopathy compared to conventional coronary angiography or intravascular ultrasound in heart transplant patients?
CCTA is a reliable noninvasive imaging alternative to conventional coronary angiography with excellent sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value for detecting cardiac allograft vasculopathy.
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for detecting cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) in comparison with conventional coronary angiography (CCAG) alone or with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). BACKGROUND CAV limits long-term survival after heart transplantation, and screening for CAV is performed on annual basis. CCTA is currently not recommended for CAV screening due to the limited accuracy reported by early studies. Technological advances, however, might have resulted in improved test performance and might justify re-evaluation of this recommendation. METHODS A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase for all prospective trials assessing CAV using CCTA was performed using a standard approach for meta-analysis for diagnostic test and a bivariate analysis. RESULTS Thirteen studies evaluating 615 patients (mean age 52 years, 83% male) and 9,481 segments fulfilled inclusion criteria. Patient-based analyses comparing CCTA versus CCAG for the detection of any CAV (> luminal irregularities) and significant CAV (stenosis ≥50%), showed mean weighted sensitivities of 97% and 94%, specificities of 81% and 92%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% and 99%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 78% and 67%, and diagnostic accuracies of 88% and 94%, respectively. There was a strong trend toward improved sensitivity (97% vs. 91%, p = 0.06) and NPV (99% vs. 97%, p = 0.06) to detect significant CAV with 64-slice compared with 16-slice CCTA. A patient-based analysis of 64-slice CCTA versus IVUS showed a mean weighted sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 75% to detect CAV (intimal thickening >0.5 mm), whereas the PPV and NPV were 93% and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS CCTA using currently available technology is a reliable noninvasive imaging alternative to coronary angiography with an excellent sensitivity, specificity, and NPV for the detection of CAV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wever‐Pinzon et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) (n=615). Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) vs. Conventional coronary angiography (CCAG) alone or with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was evaluated on Detection of any CAV (> luminal irregularities) and significant CAV (stenosis ≥50%). CCTA demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for detecting significant cardiac allograft vasculopathy compared with conventional angiography, yielding 94% sensitivity and 92% specificity.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: