ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2020
Comparison of coronary CT angiography versus functional imaging for CABG patients: A resource utilization analysis.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe impact of anatomical versus functional testing in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is poorly defined. We therefore sought to determine the rates of downstream investigations and the attendant healthcare costs in CABG patients undergoing CCTA versus SPECT. METHODS AND
results2754 consecutive CABG patients were imaged by SPECT (2163) or CCTA (591). 425 patients (15.4%) underwent downstream testing which was more common in those imaged with CCTA versus SPECT (23.18% vs 13.31% respectively, p < 0.01). When a propensity score adjustment was made for differences in baseline characteristics, the findings in downstream testing persisted (p < 0.01). When patients who subsequently underwent repeat revascularization (arguably the highest risk patients) were removed from the analysis, downstream testing remained more frequent in CCTA (12.7%) versus SPECT imaged patients (8.8%) (p = 0.01). Costs of downstream tests per patient were two-fold greater in the CCTA group in comparison to the SPECT group ($366.79 ± 29.59 vs $167.35 ± 10.12 respectively, p < 0.01). Conversely, total costs which included the index costs were less in the CCTA group, $764.66 ± 29.59 versus $1396.73 ± 1012 for the SPECT cohort, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsIndex imaging with SPECT versus CCTA in CABG patients was associated with fewer downstream tests, less ICA, less repeat revascularization but greater expense. Cost however is only part of the decision making process that determines an optimal index test. Until CCTA demonstrates improved risk stratification over SPECT in CABG patients it is likely SPECT will remain the preferred first imaging test.
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.