PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 28, 2026Medicina0 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of Non-Invasive and Invasive Diagnostic Methods for Coronary Artery Disease: Single-Centre Data

View Full Paper
TFTautvydas FabijonavičiusLGLina GastilavičiūtėGFGerda Falkauskaitė

Key Points

  • Evaluate the agreement between CCTA and ICA in diagnosing coronary artery disease and identify factors influencing discrepancies.
  • Conducted a retrospective analysis of 500 patients
  • All patients underwent CCTA prior to ICA within one year
  • Coronary stenoses assessed at segment, vessel, and patient levels
  • Agreement evaluated using the kappa coefficient
  • Logistic regression used to identify factors associated with discrepancies
  • Segment-level agreement between CCTA and ICA was low to moderate (κ = 0.108–0.461)
  • CCTA identified ≥50% coronary stenosis more frequently than ICA (86.2% vs. 59.4%, p < 0.001)
  • CCTA demonstrated high sensitivity (91.3%) but low specificity (21.2%)
  • Discrepancies associated with higher coronary calcium burden and factors like BMI > 25 kg/m2 and age < 68 years

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is widely used in the diagnostic evaluation of suspected stable coronary artery disease; however, its agreement with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) remains inconsistent across different levels of analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between CCTA and ICA and to identify the factors associated with discrepancies. Materials and Methods: A single-centre retrospective analysis of 500 patients was performed. All patients underwent CCTA within one year prior to ICA. Coronary stenoses were evaluated at the 11-segment coronary artery, vessel, and patient levels using a ≥50% cut-off. Diagnostic agreement was assessed using the kappa coefficient, while diagnostic performance was evaluated in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Factors associated with discrepancies were evaluated using a logistic regression model. Results: At the segment level, agreement between CCTA and ICA was low to moderate across 11 coronary segments (κ = 0.108–0.461). At the patient level, CCTA identified ≥50% coronary stenosis more frequently than ICA (86.2% vs. 59.4%, p 25 kg/m2, age < 68 years, and multiple comorbidities were independently associated with discordant findings. Conclusions: At the patient level, CCTA demonstrates high sensitivity and represents an appropriate non-invasive method for patient selection for further diagnostic evaluation. However, agreement between CCTA and invasive coronary angiography remains limited at the segment and vessel levels. Diagnostic discrepancies were significantly associated with coronary artery calcification and higher body mass index (BMI), which should be taken into consideration when interpreting CCTA findings.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Fabijonavičius et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a288060a974eb0d3c03fa8https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62030452
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper