ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2022
Evaluation of the Appropriate Use of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: A Retrospective, Single-Center Analysis.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Coronary Angiography and Revascularization Rates Made Over 5 Years in Public Institutions in Türkiye.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Risk Assessment, Prevention and Treatment Strategies.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We assessed the application of appropriate use criteria of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in comparison to invasive coronary angiography results and revascularization rates in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: 1305 patients referred to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) after CCTA were evaluated retrospectively. The primary indication for CCTA was assessed according to the consensus for intermediate-risk (15−85% pre-test probability) into appropriate (A), inappropriate (I), and uncertain while referring to published guidelines. Patients’ risk factors, angina, and heart failure symptoms (Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification (CCSC), New York Heart Association (NYHA); clinical data; and ICA results were gathered. Results: Of 1305 patients referred to CCTA prior to ICA, 496 (38.0%) were appropriate, 766 (56.9%) inappropriate, and 43 (3.3%) uncertain. Of 766 patients with inappropriate CCTA referrals, 370 (48.3%) were classified as “inappropriately low” (<15% pre-test probability) and 396 (51.7%) as “inappropriately high” (>85%) in regard to the recommended CCTA utilization. Sub-analysis of the adherence to the appropriate use criteria did not differ between the source of the referring physicians (intramural tertiary, private practice primary care, or external secondary care hospitals). Obstructive CAD with subsequent revascularization rates (total of 39.2%) did not differ significantly between the appropriate (38.3%), inappropriate (41.0%), or uncertain (23.3%) groups (p = 0.068). Conclusion: The total coronary revascularization rate after CCTA was 39.2% and not different among low, intermediate, and pre-test probability groups. These findings support the role of CCTA as an excellent gatekeeper in patients with suspected obstructive CAD even beyond pre-test probability calculation models.
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.