ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2010
The impact of cardiac CT on the appropriate utilization of catheter coronary angiography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The diagnostic performance of multi-slice coronary computed tomographic angiography: a systematic review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Pooled it
- Can computer tomography help predict feasibility of transseptal puncture after percutaneous closure of an interatrial septal communication?Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2012Article
- Can Computer Tomography Predict Compromise of Cardiac Structures After Percutaneous Closure of Interatrial Septal Defects?Cardiology research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) on the appropriate utilization of catheter angiography (CA). This observational trial analyzed all patients undergoing CA in 2006 and 2007 in one hospital. In 2007, patients having a low to intermediate cardiovascular risk and suspicion of coronary artery disease (CAD) and those with suspicion of progression of known organic heart disease (OHD) underwent CTCA either prior to CA or as the sole imaging modality. Appropriate utilization of CA was defined as: (1) percentage of patients showing normal or non-significant findings at CA, (2) percentage of self-referred patients to CA, and (3) percentage of patients with known OHD undergoing CA without immediate operative or interventional consequences. Use of CTCA resulted in a significant drop in the percentage of CA examinations in patients with suspected CAD showing normal or non-significant findings (19% in 2006, 10% in 2007, P < 0.001). The percentage of self-referred CA significantly dropped (29% in 2006, 10% in 2007, P < 0.001). CT ruled-out CAD in 74/151 (49%) patients, obviating subsequent CA. During a follow-up of 15 +/- 4 months, CA and percutaneous interventions was considered necessary in 2/74 patients. CT ruled-out progression of known OHD in 53/60 (90%) patients, while one patient underwent CA and percutaneous intervention during a follow-up period of 16 +/- 4 months. No reduction of CA examinations without immediate consequences was found in patients with known OHD (13% in 2006, 27% in 2007). In patients with suspicion of CAD, CTCA improved the appropriate utilization of CA without jeopardizing patient safety, along with a decrease of self-referred patients for CA. CTCA did not influence the appropriate utilization of CA in patients with known OHD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.