CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Medical Therapy for CTEPH: Is There Still Space for More? Feasibility and efficacy of the ultrashort side branch dedicated balloon in coronary bifurcation stenting Abnormalities in 3-Dimensional Left Ventricular Mechanics With Anthracycline Chemotherapy Are Associated With Systolic and Diastolic Dysfunction Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease Left main coronary angioplasty: early and late results of 127 acute and elective procedures Impact of large periprocedural myocardial infarction on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting for left main disease: an analysis from the EXCEL trial Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI Long-term safety and effectiveness of unprotected left main coronary stenting with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents Unprotected Left Main Disease: Indications and Optimal Strategies for Percutaneous Intervention Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation

Review Article2018 May 29. [Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J. Article Link

The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability

Knuuti J, Ballo H, Juarez-Orozco LE et al. Keywords: modality; non-invasive tests; coronary arterial disease

Abstract


AIMS- To determine the ranges of pre-test probability (PTP) of coronary artery disease (CAD) in which stress electrocardiogram (ECG), stress echocardiography, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), positron emission tomography (PET), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can reclassify patients into a post-testprobability that defines (>85%) or excludes (<15%) anatomically (defined by visual evaluation of invasive coronary angiography [ICA]) and functionally (defined by a fractional flow reserve [FFR] ≤0.8) significant CAD.


METHODS AND RESULTS - A broad search in electronic databases until August 2017 was performed. Studies on the aforementioned techniques in >100 patients with stable CAD that utilized either ICA or ICA with FFR measurement as reference, were included. Study-level data was pooled using a hierarchical bivariate random-effects model and likelihood ratios were obtained for each technique. The PTP ranges for each technique to rule-in or rule-out significant CAD were defined. A total of 28 664 patients from 132 studies that used ICA as reference and 4131 from 23 studies using FFR, were analysed. Stress ECG can rule-in and rule-out anatomically significant CAD only when PTP is ≥80% (76-83) and ≤19% (15-25), respectively. Coronary computed tomography angiography is able to rule-inanatomic CAD at a PTP ≥58% (45-70) and rule-out at a PTP ≤80% (65-94). The corresponding PTP values for functionally significantCAD were ≥75% (67-83) and ≤57% (40-72) for CCTA, and ≥71% (59-81) and ≤27 (24-31) for ICA, demonstrating poorer performance of anatomic imaging against FFR. In contrast, functional imaging techniques (PET, stress CMR, and SPECT) are able to rule-in functionally significant CAD when PTP is ≥46-59% and rule-out when PTP is ≤34-57%.


CONCLUSION- The various diagnostic modalities have different optimal performance ranges for the detection of anatomically and functionally significant CAD. Stress ECG appears to have very limited diagnostic power. The selection of a diagnostic technique for any given patient to rule-in or rule-out CAD should be based on the optimal PTP range for each test and on the assumed reference standard.