CCTA和CACS在非心脏手术患者术前心血管风险分层中的应用:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

Ioannis Kyriakoulis, Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis, Konstantinos Aznaouridis, Sriram Sunil Kumar, Dimitrios Schizas, Damianos G Kokkinidis
{"title":"CCTA和CACS在非心脏手术患者术前心血管风险分层中的应用:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ioannis Kyriakoulis, Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis, Konstantinos Aznaouridis, Sriram Sunil Kumar, Dimitrios Schizas, Damianos G Kokkinidis","doi":"10.1016/j.jcct.2025.06.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) is a common cause of perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality following noncardiac surgery. Patients who require preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification, traditionally undergo noninvasive cardiac imaging using myocardial perfusion imaging or stress echocardiography. Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) and Coronary Artery Calcium Score (CACS) have demonstrated prognostic value in predicting postoperative MACE and effectively risk stratifying patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE and Scopus for studies reporting data on preoperative CCTA and CACS results and postoperative short- and long-term MACE in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. A random-effect model (DerSimonian-Laird approach) was used to estimate the pooled Odds Ratios for MACE according to different CCTA and CACS results. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis model was employed to assess pooled sensitivity and specificity of CCTA and CACS for MACE, and meta-analyses of proportions were performed to assess pooled positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy estimates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1,009 studies identified from the literature search, fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Obstructive stenosis (stenosis ≥50 ​%) on CCTA demonstrated increased odds for MACE compared to nonobstructive stenosis or normal findings, both in short- and long-term postoperative period (OR: 3.94, 95 ​% CI: 1.63-9.54 and OR: 8.95, 95 ​% CI: 4.48-17.87, respectively). Similar outcomes were observed when comparing patients with severe CACS (CACS ≥400) (OR: 2.29, 95 ​% CI: 1.35-3.86 and OR: 5.45, 95 ​% CI: 3.49-8.51 for short- and long-term postoperative MACE, respectively). In terms of prognostic performance CCTA and CACS demonstrated high NPV but moderate PPV for short- and long-term postoperative MACE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Obstructive stenosis on CCTA as well as severe CACS (CACS ≥400) can reliably risk stratify patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.</p><p><strong>Protocol registration: </strong>CRD42024600216.</p>","PeriodicalId":94071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CCTA and CACS for preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ioannis Kyriakoulis, Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis, Konstantinos Aznaouridis, Sriram Sunil Kumar, Dimitrios Schizas, Damianos G Kokkinidis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcct.2025.06.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) is a common cause of perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality following noncardiac surgery. Patients who require preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification, traditionally undergo noninvasive cardiac imaging using myocardial perfusion imaging or stress echocardiography. Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) and Coronary Artery Calcium Score (CACS) have demonstrated prognostic value in predicting postoperative MACE and effectively risk stratifying patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE and Scopus for studies reporting data on preoperative CCTA and CACS results and postoperative short- and long-term MACE in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. A random-effect model (DerSimonian-Laird approach) was used to estimate the pooled Odds Ratios for MACE according to different CCTA and CACS results. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis model was employed to assess pooled sensitivity and specificity of CCTA and CACS for MACE, and meta-analyses of proportions were performed to assess pooled positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy estimates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1,009 studies identified from the literature search, fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Obstructive stenosis (stenosis ≥50 ​%) on CCTA demonstrated increased odds for MACE compared to nonobstructive stenosis or normal findings, both in short- and long-term postoperative period (OR: 3.94, 95 ​% CI: 1.63-9.54 and OR: 8.95, 95 ​% CI: 4.48-17.87, respectively). Similar outcomes were observed when comparing patients with severe CACS (CACS ≥400) (OR: 2.29, 95 ​% CI: 1.35-3.86 and OR: 5.45, 95 ​% CI: 3.49-8.51 for short- and long-term postoperative MACE, respectively). In terms of prognostic performance CCTA and CACS demonstrated high NPV but moderate PPV for short- and long-term postoperative MACE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Obstructive stenosis on CCTA as well as severe CACS (CACS ≥400) can reliably risk stratify patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.</p><p><strong>Protocol registration: </strong>CRD42024600216.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2025.06.007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2025.06.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:重大心血管不良事件(MACE)是非心脏手术后围手术期和长期发病和死亡的常见原因。术前需要心血管危险分层的患者,传统上采用心肌灌注成像或应激超声心动图进行无创心脏成像。冠状动脉计算机断层血管造影(CCTA)和冠状动脉钙评分(CACS)在预测术后MACE和有效地对非心脏手术患者进行风险分层方面具有预后价值。方法:我们在MEDLINE和Scopus中进行了系统检索,以报告非心脏手术患者术前CCTA和CACS结果以及术后短期和长期MACE的研究数据。采用随机效应模型(dersimonan - laird方法)根据不同的CCTA和CACS结果估计MACE的合并优势比。采用双变量随机效应荟萃分析模型评估CCTA和CACS对MACE的合并敏感性和特异性,并进行比例荟萃分析评估合并阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和准确性估计。结果:从文献检索中确定的1009项研究中,有14项研究被纳入meta分析。CCTA显示梗阻性狭窄(狭窄≥50%)与非梗阻性狭窄或正常结果相比,术后短期和长期MACE的发生率均增加(or: 3.94, 95% CI: 1.63-9.54; or: 8.95, 95% CI: 4.48-17.87)。当比较严重CACS (CACS≥400)患者时,观察到类似的结果(短期和长期术后MACE分别为OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.35-3.86和OR: 5.45, 95% CI: 3.49-8.51)。在预后表现方面,CCTA和CACS显示短期和长期术后MACE的NPV高,但PPV中等。结论:CCTA上梗阻性狭窄以及严重CACS (CACS≥400)可以可靠地对接受非心脏手术的患者进行危险分层。协议注册:CRD42024600216。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CCTA and CACS for preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) is a common cause of perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality following noncardiac surgery. Patients who require preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification, traditionally undergo noninvasive cardiac imaging using myocardial perfusion imaging or stress echocardiography. Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) and Coronary Artery Calcium Score (CACS) have demonstrated prognostic value in predicting postoperative MACE and effectively risk stratifying patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

Methods: We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE and Scopus for studies reporting data on preoperative CCTA and CACS results and postoperative short- and long-term MACE in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. A random-effect model (DerSimonian-Laird approach) was used to estimate the pooled Odds Ratios for MACE according to different CCTA and CACS results. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis model was employed to assess pooled sensitivity and specificity of CCTA and CACS for MACE, and meta-analyses of proportions were performed to assess pooled positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy estimates.

Results: Out of 1,009 studies identified from the literature search, fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Obstructive stenosis (stenosis ≥50 ​%) on CCTA demonstrated increased odds for MACE compared to nonobstructive stenosis or normal findings, both in short- and long-term postoperative period (OR: 3.94, 95 ​% CI: 1.63-9.54 and OR: 8.95, 95 ​% CI: 4.48-17.87, respectively). Similar outcomes were observed when comparing patients with severe CACS (CACS ≥400) (OR: 2.29, 95 ​% CI: 1.35-3.86 and OR: 5.45, 95 ​% CI: 3.49-8.51 for short- and long-term postoperative MACE, respectively). In terms of prognostic performance CCTA and CACS demonstrated high NPV but moderate PPV for short- and long-term postoperative MACE.

Conclusion: Obstructive stenosis on CCTA as well as severe CACS (CACS ≥400) can reliably risk stratify patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

Protocol registration: CRD42024600216.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信