Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41679898›Full record

SynthesisOpen heart2026

CT coronary angiography guided treatment versus routine invasive coronary angiography in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Reagan Hon Kuan Lee, Man Hei Marcus Kam, Pasin Chatchalermwit, Callum Weston, Guo Rong Oon, Brian Moosa, Alasdair J Gray, Matthew Kelham, Daniel A Jones, Kang-Ling Wang and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Reagan Hon Kuan Lee *The University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3658-4103
Man Hei Marcus Kam *The University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0385-6915
Pasin ChatchalermwitThe University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Callum WestonThe University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Guo Rong OonThe University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Brian MoosaThe University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Alasdair J GrayEmergency Department, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Matthew KelhamCentre for Cardiovascular Medicine and Devices, Queen Mary University of London William Harvey Research Institute, London, England, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4118-5043
Daniel A JonesCentre for Cardiovascular Medicine and Devices, Queen Mary University of London William Harvey Research Institute, London, England, UK.
Kang-Ling WangBritish Heart Foundation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Peter A HenriksenEdinburgh Heart Centre, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK phenrik1@staffmail.ed.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) accounts for the majority of acute coronary syndrome presentations. Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is recommended but challenging to deliver within guideline-recommended timeframes and unnecessary in patients without obstructive disease. CT coronary angiography (CTCA) offers a non-invasive alternative for lower-risk patients that may reduce procedural-related complications and optimise resource use by avoiding unnecessary ICA.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following Cochrane standards. Four databases were searched from January 2005 to March 2025. Eligible studies included adult patients with NSTEMI undergoing CTCA to guide management, with comparators of standard care (ICA-first strategies). Primary outcomes were ICA utilisation, composite cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, cardiovascular and all-cause death) and diagnostic accuracy of CTCA versus ICA.

resultsFrom 12 058 records, eight studies met inclusion criteria; three randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies and five observational cohorts; total n≈2700. Across two RCTs, a CTCA-first strategy did not significantly reduce ICA use (pooled relative risk (RR)=0.82 (0.55-1.22)). Evidence for composite clinical outcomes was heterogeneous: The Rapid Assessment of Potential Ischaemic Heart Disease with CTCA trial reported no difference in death or MI, whereas the trial, Computed Tomography Cardiac Angiography Before Invasive Coronary Angiography in Patients with Previous Bypass Surgery, observed reduced events at 1 year (RR=0.63 (0.43-0.94)). Pooled diagnostic accuracy for >50% stenosis from observational studies demonstrated high sensitivity (96.3%) and moderate specificity (79.6%), with high heterogeneity. Length of stay and patient satisfaction were similar or improved with CTCA-first strategies, though cost-effectiveness data were limited. Overall evidence quality ranged from moderate (RCTs) to low (observational studies).

conclusionsCTCA demonstrates excellent diagnostic accuracy and may reduce complications while maintaining clinical outcomes in patients with NSTEMI. Current evidence does not show consistent reductions in ICA use or major adverse events. Larger trials are needed to clarify its role in NSTEMI management pathways. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251003903.

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyNon-ST Elevated Myocardial InfarctionHumansPredictive Value of TestsAcute Coronary SyndromeComputed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyMyocardial InfarctionOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID41679898
PMCPMC12911713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.