Diagnostic Accuracy of Coronary Computed Tomography Before Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Issue 4 (July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chaikriangkrai, Kongkiat; Jhun, Hye Yeon; Shantha, Ghanshyam Palamaner Subash; Abdulhak, Aref Bin; Tandon, Rudhir; Alqasrawi, Musab; Klappa, Anthony; Pancholy, Samir; Deshmukh, Abhishek; Bhama, Jay; Sigurdsson, Gardar
• Is Part Of: Journal of thoracic imaging. Volume 33:Issue 4(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-07
• Subjects: coronary artery disease -- computed angiography -- aortic stenosis -- valvular heart disease -- cardiac surgery -- transcatheter aortic valve replacement -- preoperative; Chest -- Radiography -- Periodicals; Chest -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; 617.540757
• DOI: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000322
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0883-5993

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: In aortic stenosis patients referred for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR), the evidence of diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has been limited. The objective of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA for significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients referred for AVR using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the gold standard. Materials and Methods: We searched databases for all diagnostic studies of CCTA in patients referred for AVR, which reported diagnostic testing characteristics on patient-based analysis required to pool summary sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, and negative-likelihood ratio. Significant CAD in both CCTA and ICA was defined by >50% stenosis in any coronary artery, coronary stent, or bypass graft. Results: Thirteen studies evaluated 1498 patients (mean age, 74 y; 47% men; 76% transcatheter AVR). The pooled prevalence of significant stenosis determined by ICA was 43%. Hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated a summary area under curve of 0.96. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive-likelihood and negative-likelihood ratios of CCTA in identifying significant stenosis determined by ICA were 95%, 79%, 4.48, and 0.06, respectively. In subgroup analysis, the diagnostic profiles of CCTA were comparable between surgical and transcatheter AVR. Conclusions: Despite the higher prevalence of significant CAD in patients with aortic stenosis than with other valvular heart diseases, our meta-analysis has shown that CCTA has a suitable diagnostic accuracy profile as a gatekeeper test for ICA. Our study illustrates a need for further study of the potential role of CCTA in preoperative planning for AVR.