Reis João Ferreira, Ramos Ruben Baptista, Marques Hugo, Daniel Pedro Modas, Aguiar Sílvia Rosa, Morais Luís Almeida, Cruz Madalena Coutinho, Moreira Rita Ilhão, Monteiro André Viveiros, Cacela Duarte, Figueiredo Luísa, Ferreira Rui Cruz
Department of Cardiology, Hospital de Santa Marta, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, nº 50, 1169-024, Lisbon, Portugal.
Department of Radiology, Hospital de Santa Marta, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, Lisbon, Portugal.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022 Apr;38(4):883-893. doi: 10.1007/s10554-021-02426-6. Epub 2022 Feb 28.
This study aimed to determine the impact of systematic coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) use following an abnormal non-invasive ischemia test (NIST) on patient selection strategy for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). In patients with suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), NIST use frequently results in sub-optimal diagnostic and revascularization yields of ICA. This randomized clinical trial, conducted at a single academic tertiary center, selected 220 symptomatic patients with mild-to-moderately abnormal NIST results who were referred for ICA. Patients received either the originally intended ICA (n = 105) or CCTA (n = 115). The primary endpoint was the diagnostic yield of ICA in each group. Revascularization yield and major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months were also assessed. The patients were 69 ± 9 years old, 60% were men, and 31% had typical angina. Mean pre-test probability of obstructive CAD was 34%. Overall prevalence of obstructive CAD was 37.7% on the index angiographic procedure. In the CCTA group, ICA was cancelled by referring physicians in 83 patients (72.2%) after receiving CCTA results. For those undergoing ICA, diagnostic (84.4% vs. 41.7%, p<0.001) and revascularization (71.9% vs. 38.8%, p = 0.001) yields were significantly higher for CCTA-guided ICA than for standard NIST-guided ICA. Mean cumulative radiation exposure was significantly lower in the CCTA-guided ICA arm than in the NIST-guided ICA arm (12 ± 9 vs. 16 ± 10 mSv, respectively, p = 0.024). There were no significant differences in the primary safety endpoint rates between the strategies (p = 0.439). In patients with suspected CAD and mild-to-moderately abnormal ischemia tests, a diagnostic strategy including CCTA as a gatekeeper is safe and effective and significantly improves diagnostic and revascularization yields of ICA.
本研究旨在确定在无创缺血试验(NIST)异常后系统性使用冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CCTA)对有创冠状动脉造影(ICA)患者选择策略的影响。在疑似稳定型冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的患者中,使用NIST常常导致ICA的诊断和血运重建效果欠佳。这项在单一学术三级中心进行的随机临床试验,选取了220例有症状且NIST结果轻度至中度异常、被转诊接受ICA的患者。患者被随机分为接受原本计划的ICA组(n = 105)或CCTA组(n = 115)。主要终点是每组ICA的诊断率。还评估了12个月时的血运重建率和主要不良心血管事件。患者年龄为69±9岁,60%为男性,31%有典型心绞痛。阻塞性CAD的平均预测试概率为34%。在首次血管造影检查中,阻塞性CAD的总体患病率为37.7%。在CCTA组中,83例患者(72.2%)在接受CCTA结果后被转诊医生取消了ICA检查。对于接受ICA的患者,CCTA引导的ICA的诊断率(84.4%对41.7%,p<0.001)和血运重建率(71.9%对38.8%,p = 0.001)显著高于标准NIST引导的ICA。CCTA引导的ICA组的平均累积辐射暴露显著低于NIST引导的ICA组(分别为12±9与16±10 mSv,p = 0.024)。两种策略之间的主要安全终点率无显著差异(p = 0.439)。在疑似CAD且缺血试验轻度至中度异常的患者中,一种以CCTA为把关的诊断策略是安全有效的,并且显著提高了ICA的诊断率和血运重建率。