Becker Leonie M, Peper Joyce, van Ginkel Dirk-Jan, Overduin Daniël C, van Es Hendrik W, Rensing Benno J M W, Timmers Leo, Ten Berg Jurriën M, Mohamed Hoesein Firdaus A A, Leiner Tim, Swaans Martin J
Department of Cardiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eur Radiol. 2025 Mar;35(3):1552-1569. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-11211-7. Epub 2024 Dec 31.
Screening for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) could prevent unnecessary invasive coronary angiography (ICA) procedures during work-up for trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) improves CCTA accuracy in chest pain patients. However, its reliability in the TAVI population is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses CCTA and CT-FFR in TAVI candidates.
PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for studies regarding CCTA and/or CT-FFR in TAVI candidates. Primary endpoint was correct identification and rule-out of obstructive CAD. Results were pooled in a meta-analysis.
Thirty-four articles were part of the meta-analysis, reporting results for CCTA and CT-FFR in 7235 and 1269 patients, respectively. Reference standard was mostly anatomical severity of CAD. At patient level, pooled CCTA sensitivity was 94.0% and specificity 72.4%. CT-FFR sensitivity was 93.2% and specificity 70.3% with substantial variation between studies. However, in studies that compared both, CT-FFR performed better than CCTA. Sensitivity of CCTA versus CT-FFR was 74.9% versus 83.9%, and specificity was 65.5% versus 89.8%.
Negative CCTA accurately rules out CAD in the TAVI population. CCTA could lead to significant reduction in pre-TAVI ICA, but false positives remain high. Diagnostic accuracy of CT-FFR was comparable to that of CCTA in our meta-analyses, but in studies performing a direct comparison, CT-FFR performed better than CCTA. However, as most studies were small and used CT-FFR software exclusively available for research, a large study on CT-FFR in TAVI work-up using commercially available CT-FFR software would be appropriate before considering routine implementation.
Question Coronary artery disease (CAD) screening with invasive coronary angiography before trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is often retrospectively unnecessary, revealing no obstructive CAD. Findings Coronary CTA ruled out CAD in approximately half of TAVI candidates. CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) performed similarly overall but better than coronary CTA in direct comparison. Clinical relevance Addition of coronary CTA to TAVI planning-CT to screen for obstructive CAD could reduce negative invasive coronary angiographies in TAVI work-up. CT-FFR could reduce false-positive coronary CTA results, improving its gatekeeper function in this population, but more data is necessary.
采用冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CCTA)筛查阻塞性冠状动脉疾病(CAD),可预防经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)检查期间不必要的有创冠状动脉造影(ICA)操作。CT衍生的血流储备分数(CT-FFR)可提高胸痛患者CCTA的准确性。然而,其在TAVI人群中的可靠性尚不清楚。本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了TAVI候选者中的CCTA和CT-FFR。
检索PubMed、Embase和Web of Science,查找有关TAVI候选者中CCTA和/或CT-FFR的研究。主要终点是正确识别和排除阻塞性CAD。结果汇总进行荟萃分析。
34篇文章纳入荟萃分析,分别报告了7235例和1269例患者CCTA和CT-FFR的结果。参考标准大多为CAD的解剖严重程度。在患者层面,汇总的CCTA敏感性为94.0%,特异性为72.4%。CT-FFR敏感性为93.2%,特异性为70.3%,各研究之间存在较大差异。然而,在同时比较两者的研究中,CT-FFR表现优于CCTA。CCTA与CT-FFR的敏感性分别为74.9%和83.9%,特异性分别为65.5%和89.8%。
CCTA阴性可准确排除TAVI人群中的CAD。CCTA可显著减少TAVI术前的ICA,但假阳性率仍然较高。在我们的荟萃分析中,CT-FFR的诊断准确性与CCTA相当,但在进行直接比较的研究中,CT-FFR表现优于CCTA。然而,由于大多数研究规模较小且使用的是仅用于研究的CT-FFR软件,在考虑常规应用之前,使用商用CT-FFR软件对TAVI检查中的CT-FFR进行一项大型研究是合适的。
问题:经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)前采用有创冠状动脉造影筛查冠状动脉疾病(CAD)通常在回顾时是不必要的,未发现阻塞性CAD。发现:冠状动脉CTA在约一半的TAVI候选者中排除了CAD。CT衍生的血流储备分数(CT-FFR)总体表现相似,但在直接比较中优于冠状动脉CTA。临床意义:在TAVI规划CT中增加冠状动脉CTA以筛查阻塞性CAD可减少TAVI检查中阴性有创冠状动脉造影的数量。CT-FFR可减少冠状动脉CTA的假阳性结果,改善其在该人群中的守门功能,但还需要更多数据。