SynthesisOpen heart2025
Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography angiography compared with invasive coronary angiography in preoperative cardiac surgery planning: a focus on valve surgery patients.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for detecting coronary artery disease: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Low- versus high-concentration iodine contrast media for coronary computed tomography angiography and dynamic stress computed tomography perfusion: a study protocol for a prospective randomized trial.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Value of Coronary CT Angiography in Ruling Out Coronary Artery Disease in Elderly Patients Candidates to TAVI.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- How to Individualize Coronary Assessment and Revascularization in Severe AS Patients Undergoing TAVI in the Era of Lifetime Management?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for assessing significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients referred for surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)\transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the reference standard.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of 28 studies to compare CCTA with ICA for preoperative coronary evaluation. Studies were stratified into two subgroups: the first consisting of those which included only patients undergoing valve surgery (n=19) and the second including TAVI or mixed (TAVI and surgical) populations (n=9). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were recorded or determined, and a summary diagnostic performance was obtained by a random effects model. Pooled forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were also analysed.
resultsThe overall sensitivity of CCTA to diagnose significant CAD varied between 18 studies, ranging from 85% to 94%; the pooled sensitivity over all 28 studies was 91% (95% CI 88% to 93%) and the specificity was 88% (95% CI 84% to 91%). The pooled PPV was 78% (95% CI 72% to 83%), while the NPV was 95% (95% CI 93% to 97%). The diagnostic performance of the study was 89.8%.
conclusionsCCTA is a trustworthy, non-invasive diagnostic option to rule out significant CAD in patients undergoing valve surgery. Its high specificity in surgical candidates favours its use as a 'gatekeeper' to ICA with a potential reduction in unnecessary invasive surgery.
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.