ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2022
Cardiac computed tomographic angiography after abnormal ischemia test as a gatekeeper to invasive coronary angiography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined strategy of upfront CTCA and optimal treatment for stable chest pain: rationale and design of the CLEAR-CAD trial.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Article
- Editor's Choice to the April 2022 issue : Cardiac computed tomographic angiography after abnormal ischemia test as a gatekeeper to invasive coronary angiograph.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the impact of systematic coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) use following an abnormal non-invasive ischemia test (NIST) on patient selection strategy for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). In patients with suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), NIST use frequently results in sub-optimal diagnostic and revascularization yields of ICA. This randomized clinical trial, conducted at a single academic tertiary center, selected 220 symptomatic patients with mild-to-moderately abnormal NIST results who were referred for ICA. Patients received either the originally intended ICA (n = 105) or CCTA (n = 115). The primary endpoint was the diagnostic yield of ICA in each group. Revascularization yield and major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months were also assessed. The patients were 69 ± 9 years old, 60% were men, and 31% had typical angina. Mean pre-test probability of obstructive CAD was 34%. Overall prevalence of obstructive CAD was 37.7% on the index angiographic procedure. In the CCTA group, ICA was cancelled by referring physicians in 83 patients (72.2%) after receiving CCTA results. For those undergoing ICA, diagnostic (84.4% vs. 41.7%, p<0.001) and revascularization (71.9% vs. 38.8%, p = 0.001) yields were significantly higher for CCTA-guided ICA than for standard NIST-guided ICA. Mean cumulative radiation exposure was significantly lower in the CCTA-guided ICA arm than in the NIST-guided ICA arm (12 ± 9 vs. 16 ± 10 mSv, respectively, p = 0.024). There were no significant differences in the primary safety endpoint rates between the strategies (p = 0.439). In patients with suspected CAD and mild-to-moderately abnormal ischemia tests, a diagnostic strategy including CCTA as a gatekeeper is safe and effective and significantly improves diagnostic and revascularization yields of ICA.
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.