CT angiography compared to invasive angiography for stable coronary disease as predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events- A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Computational tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) is increasingly the diagnostic test of choice for investigating patients with stable anginal symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CTCA with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with regards to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), procedural complications and rates of revascularisation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with the PRISMA statement. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE Ovid and Embase, with three studies included in meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Review Manager 5.3 for MacOS software and outcomes expressed as odds ratio, with 95% confidence intervals and sensitivity analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 5662 patients were included in this study level meta-analysis. There was no difference in MACE between CT and angiography [2.97% v 3.45%, fixed-effect model, OR: 0.84 (0.62-1.14), p = 0.26, I 0%] and no difference found in rates of myocardial infarction, death or stroke. CTCA was associated with a reduced rate of revascularisation [12.6% v 18.3%, fixed-effects model, OR: 0.64 (0.55-0.75), p<0.00001, I =0%]. However, CTCA was not associated with a significantly lower complication rate [0.5% v 1.72%, random effects model, OR: 0.52 (0.06-4.38), p = 0.55, I 52%].

CONCLUSION

CTCA is a safe strategy for investigating patients with stable angina with no associated increase in MACE but a reduction in revascularisation rates.