Jukema Ruurt A, Dahdal Jorge, Kooijman Eline M, Wahedi Ellaha, de Winter Ruben W, Guglielmo Marco, Cramer Maarten Jan, van der Harst Pim, Remmelzwaal Sharon, Raijmakers Pieter, Knaapen Paul, Danad Ibrahim
Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Medicine, Hospital del Salvador, Santiago, Chile.
Heart. 2024 Dec 13;111(1):4-10. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2024-324248.
The diagnostic performance of non-invasive imaging techniques for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with a history of myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention has not been comprehensively evaluated. This meta-analysis assesses the diagnostic value of coronary CT angiography (CCTA), CCTA combined with CT perfusion (CCTA+CTP), cardiac MRI (CMR) and single-photon emission CT (SPECT) compared with invasive reference standards.
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from 2005 to September 2022 for prospective, blinded studies including populations with ≥50% prior CAD.
We identified 18 studies encompassing 3265 patients, with obstructive CAD present in 64%. The per-patient sensitivity of CCTA (0.95; 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), CCTA+CTP (0.93; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98) and CMR (0.91; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94) was high, while SPECT showed lower sensitivity (0.63; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.73). SPECT had higher specificity compared with CCTA (0.66; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76 vs 0.37; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.46), but was comparable to CCTA+CTP (0.59; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.69) and CMR (0.69; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81). The area under the curve for SPECT was the lowest (0.70; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.87), while CCTA (0.91; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98), CCTA+CTP (0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00) and CMR (0.91; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00) showed similar high values.
In patients with prior CAD, CCTA, CCTA+CTP and CMR demonstrated high diagnostic performance, whereas SPECT had lower sensitivity. These findings can guide the selection of non-invasive imaging techniques in this high-risk population.
CRD42022322348.
对于有心肌梗死病史或经皮冠状动脉介入治疗史的患者,用于检测阻塞性冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的非侵入性成像技术的诊断性能尚未得到全面评估。本荟萃分析评估了冠状动脉CT血管造影(CCTA)、CCTA联合CT灌注(CCTA+CTP)、心脏磁共振成像(CMR)和单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)与侵入性参考标准相比的诊断价值。
我们系统检索了2005年至2022年9月期间的PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆,以查找包括既往CAD发生率≥50%人群的前瞻性、盲法研究。
我们纳入了18项研究,共3265例患者,其中64%存在阻塞性CAD。CCTA(0.95;95%CI 0.92至0.98)、CCTA+CTP(0.93;95%CI 0.84至0.98)和CMR(0.91;95%CI 0.86至0.94)的患者个体敏感性较高,而SPECT的敏感性较低(0.63;95%CI 0.52至0.73)。与CCTA相比,SPECT具有更高的特异性(0.66;95%CI 0.56至0.76对0.37;95%CI 0.29至0.46),但与CCTA+CTP(0.59;95%CI 0.49至0.69)和CMR(0.69;95%CI 0.53至0.81)相当。SPECT的曲线下面积最低(0.70;95%CI 0.58至0.87),而CCTA(0.91;95%CI 0.86至0.98)、CCTA+CTP(0.89;95%CI 0.73至1.00)和CMR(0.91;95%CI 0.80至1.00)显示出相似的高值。
在既往有CAD的患者中,CCTA、CCTA+CTP和CMR表现出较高的诊断性能,而SPECT的敏感性较低。这些发现可指导在这一高危人群中选择非侵入性成像技术。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42022322348。