ArticleYonsei medical journal2016
Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography Does Not Accurately Predict the Need of Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Stable Angina.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Implications of Moderate Coronary Stenosis on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in Patients with Stable Angina.Yonsei medical journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the ability of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) to predict the need of coronary revascularization in symptomatic patients with stable angina who were referred to a cardiac catheterization laboratory for coronary revascularization. MATERIALS AND
methodsPre-angiography CCTA findings were analyzed in 1846 consecutive symptomatic patients with stable angina, who were referred to a cardiac catheterization laboratory at six hospitals and were potential candidates for coronary revascularization between July 2011 and December 2013. The number of patients requiring revascularization was determined based on the severity of coronary stenosis as assessed by CCTA. This was compared to the actual number of revascularization procedures performed in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.
resultsBased on CCTA findings, coronary revascularization was indicated in 877 (48%) and not indicated in 969 (52%) patients. Of the 877 patients indicated for revascularization by CCTA, only 600 (68%) underwent the procedure, whereas 285 (29%) of the 969 patients not indicated for revascularization, as assessed by CCTA, underwent the procedure. When the coronary arteries were divided into 15 segments using the American Heart Association coronary tree model, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CCTA for therapeutic decision making on a per-segment analysis were 42%, 96%, 40%, and 96%, respectively.
conclusionCCTA-based assessment of coronary stenosis severity does not sufficiently differentiate between coronary segments requiring revascularization versus those not requiring revascularization. Conventional coronary angiography should be considered to determine the need of revascularization in symptomatic patients with stable angina.
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.