Coronary CT angiography alone versus with CT perfusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing approaches for chest pain.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Fabrizio D'Ascenzo, Riccardo Faletti, Gianluca Di Pietro, Riccardo Improta, Francesco Bruno, U Joseph Schoepf, Umberto Di Vita, Federico Giacobbe, Marco Nebiolo, Stefano Siliano, Andrea Solano, Arianna Morena, Elettra Pasinato, Marco Balducci, Ilaria Pagliassotto, Gaia Cura Curà, Mahmoud Mohamed, Gennaro Sardella, Nicola Galea, Marc Dewey, Marco Francone, Massimo Mancone, Paolo Fonio, Gaetano Maria De Ferrari, Ovidio De Filippo, Marco Gatti
{"title":"Coronary CT angiography alone versus with CT perfusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing approaches for chest pain.","authors":"Fabrizio D'Ascenzo, Riccardo Faletti, Gianluca Di Pietro, Riccardo Improta, Francesco Bruno, U Joseph Schoepf, Umberto Di Vita, Federico Giacobbe, Marco Nebiolo, Stefano Siliano, Andrea Solano, Arianna Morena, Elettra Pasinato, Marco Balducci, Ilaria Pagliassotto, Gaia Cura Curà, Mahmoud Mohamed, Gennaro Sardella, Nicola Galea, Marc Dewey, Marco Francone, Massimo Mancone, Paolo Fonio, Gaetano Maria De Ferrari, Ovidio De Filippo, Marco Gatti","doi":"10.1007/s00330-025-11459-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the prognostic value of stress Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>All studies evaluating patients with chest pain with CTP plus coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) alone or versus CCTA were included. The primary analysis included studies comparing CCTA plus CTP vs CCTA alone, while in the secondary analysis we analyzed the incidence of each outcome across all seven studies, two- and single-arm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven double- and single-arm studies were included (two randomized controlled trials and five observational ones) with 3587 patients (2101 evaluated with CTP plus CCTA and 1486 with CCTA alone).In the primary analysis including 4 studies, after a median follow-up of 17 months, the rates of MACEs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91-1.57, p = 0.21) and all-cause death (OR 0.41, 0.11-1.47, p = 0.17) were similar. Patients managed according to CCTA alone had higher rates of total ICA (OR 2.42, 1.99-2.94, p < 0.00001) and ICA without subsequent revascularization (OR 2.85, 1.23-6.61, p = 0.01). Conversely, the rate of ICA with subsequent revascularization was higher in patients who underwent CCTA plus CTP (OR 0.39, 0.22-0.69, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of recurrent MI (OR 0.94, 0.15-5.83, p = 0.95) and unplanned revascularization (OR 0.69, 0.19-2.51, p = 0.57, all CI 95%) between the two approaches. These results were confirmed in the secondary analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A coronary imaging approach based on perfusion evaluation in addition to anatomic assessment was comparable to CCTA alone in terms of MACE, myocardial infarctions and unplanned revascularizations up to 2 years. Patients evaluated with CTP less frequently underwent ICA, which did, however, result in a higher rate of stent implantation.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Does the addition of stress Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) improve the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of patients with chest pain compared to CCTA alone? Findings Stress CTP combined with CCTA reduces unnecessary invasive coronary angiography and increases revascularization rates without significantly impacting MACE, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. Clinical relevance Incorporating stress CTP into CCTA optimizes care by reducing unnecessary invasive procedures and improving tailored treatment strategies for patients with stable and unstable chest pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11459-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic value of stress Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease.

Materials and methods: All studies evaluating patients with chest pain with CTP plus coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) alone or versus CCTA were included. The primary analysis included studies comparing CCTA plus CTP vs CCTA alone, while in the secondary analysis we analyzed the incidence of each outcome across all seven studies, two- and single-arm.

Results: Seven double- and single-arm studies were included (two randomized controlled trials and five observational ones) with 3587 patients (2101 evaluated with CTP plus CCTA and 1486 with CCTA alone).In the primary analysis including 4 studies, after a median follow-up of 17 months, the rates of MACEs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91-1.57, p = 0.21) and all-cause death (OR 0.41, 0.11-1.47, p = 0.17) were similar. Patients managed according to CCTA alone had higher rates of total ICA (OR 2.42, 1.99-2.94, p < 0.00001) and ICA without subsequent revascularization (OR 2.85, 1.23-6.61, p = 0.01). Conversely, the rate of ICA with subsequent revascularization was higher in patients who underwent CCTA plus CTP (OR 0.39, 0.22-0.69, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of recurrent MI (OR 0.94, 0.15-5.83, p = 0.95) and unplanned revascularization (OR 0.69, 0.19-2.51, p = 0.57, all CI 95%) between the two approaches. These results were confirmed in the secondary analysis.

Conclusion: A coronary imaging approach based on perfusion evaluation in addition to anatomic assessment was comparable to CCTA alone in terms of MACE, myocardial infarctions and unplanned revascularizations up to 2 years. Patients evaluated with CTP less frequently underwent ICA, which did, however, result in a higher rate of stent implantation.

Key points: Question Does the addition of stress Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) improve the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of patients with chest pain compared to CCTA alone? Findings Stress CTP combined with CCTA reduces unnecessary invasive coronary angiography and increases revascularization rates without significantly impacting MACE, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. Clinical relevance Incorporating stress CTP into CCTA optimizes care by reducing unnecessary invasive procedures and improving tailored treatment strategies for patients with stable and unstable chest pain.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信