Combination of computed tomography angiography with coronary artery calcium score for improved diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of stable chest pain patients referred for invasive coronary angiography.

OBJECTIVES: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has higher diagnostic accuracy than coronary artery calcium (CAC) score for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with stable chest pain, while the added diagnostic value of combining CCTA with CAC is unknown. We investigated whether combining coronary CCTA with CAC score can improve the diagnosis of obstructive CAD compared with CCTA alone. METHODS: A total of 2315 patients (858 women, 37%) aged 61.1 ± 10.2 from 29 original studies were included to build two CAD prediction models based on either CCTA alone or CCTA combined with the CAC score. CAD was defined as at least 50% coronary diameter stenosis on invasive coronary angiography. Models were built by using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept set for the original study. The two CAD prediction models were compared by the likelihood ratio test, while their diagnostic performance was compared using the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC). Net benefit (benefit of true positive versus harm of false positive) was assessed by decision curve analysis. RESULTS: CAD prevalence was 43.5% (1007/2315). Combining CCTA with CAC improved CAD diagnosis compared with CCTA alone (AUC: 87% [95% CI: 86 to 89%] vs. 80% [95% CI: 78 to 82%]; p < 0.001), likelihood ratio test 236.3, df: 1, p < 0.001, showing a higher net benefit across almost all threshold probabilities. CONCLUSION: Adding the CAC score to CCTA findings in patients with stable chest pain improves the diagnostic performance in detecting CAD and the net benefit compared with CCTA alone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: CAC scoring CT performed before coronary CTA and included in the diagnostic model can improve obstructive CAD diagnosis, especially when CCTA is non-diagnostic. KEY POINTS: • The combination of coronary artery calcium with coronary computed tomography angiography showed significantly higher AUC (87%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 86 to 89%) for diagnosis of coronary artery disease compared to coronary computed tomography angiography alone (80%, 95% CI: 78 to 82%, p < 0.001). • Diagnostic improvement was mostly seen in patients with non-diagnostic C. • The improvement in diagnostic performance and the net benefit was consistent across age groups, chest pain types, and genders.

Computed tomography angiography versus Agatston score for diagnosis of coronary artery disease in patients with stable chest pain: individual patient data meta-analysis of the international COME-CCT Consortium.

OBJECTIVES: There is conflicting evidence about the comparative diagnostic accuracy of the Agatston score versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) in patients with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). PURPOSE: To determine whether CTA is superior to the Agatston score in the diagnosis of CAD. METHODS: In total 2452 patients with stable chest pain and a clinical indication for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for suspected CAD were included by the Collaborative Meta-analysis of Cardiac CT (COME-CCT) Consortium. An Agatston score of > 400 was considered positive, and obstructive CAD defined as at least 50% coronary diameter stenosis on ICA was used as the reference standard. RESULTS: Obstructive CAD was diagnosed in 44.9% of patients (1100/2452). The median Agatston score was 74. Diagnostic accuracy of CTA for the detection of obstructive CAD (81.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.5 to 84.1%) was significantly higher than that of the Agatston score (68.8%, 95% CI: 64.2 to 73.1%, p < 0.001). Among patients with an Agatston score of zero, 17% (101/600) had obstructive CAD. Diagnostic accuracy of CTA was not significantly different in patients with low to intermediate (1 to < 100, 100-400) versus moderate to high Agatston scores (401-1000, > 1000). CONCLUSIONS: Results in our international cohort show CTA to have significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than the Agatston score in patients with stable chest pain, suspected CAD, and a clinical indication for ICA. Diagnostic performance of CTA is not affected by a higher Agatston score while an Agatston score of zero does not reliably exclude obstructive CAD. KEY POINTS: • CTA showed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (81.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.5 to 84.1%) for diagnosis of coronary artery disease when compared to the Agatston score (68.8%, 95% CI: 64.2 to 73.1%, p < 0.001). • Diagnostic performance of CTA was not affected by increased amount of calcium and was not significantly different in patients with low to intermediate (1 to <100, 100-400) versus moderate to high Agatston scores (401-1000, > 1000). • Seventeen percent of patients with an Agatston score of zero showed obstructive coronary artery disease by invasive angiography showing absence of coronary artery calcium cannot reliably exclude coronary artery disease.

Diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease using computed tomography angiography in patients with stable chest pain depending on clinical probability and in clinically important subgroups: meta-analysis of individual patient data.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) should be performed in patients with any clinical probability of coronary artery disease (CAD), and whether the diagnostic performance differs between subgroups of patients. DESIGN: Prospectively designed meta-analysis of individual patient data from prospective diagnostic accuracy studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for published studies. Unpublished studies were identified via direct contact with participating investigators. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Prospective diagnostic accuracy studies that compared coronary CTA with coronary angiography as the reference standard, using at least a 50% diameter reduction as a cutoff value for obstructive CAD. All patients needed to have a clinical indication for coronary angiography due to suspected CAD, and both tests had to be performed in all patients. Results had to be provided using 2×2 or 3×2 cross tabulations for the comparison of CTA with coronary angiography. Primary outcomes were the positive and negative predictive values of CTA as a function of clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD, analysed by a generalised linear mixed model; calculations were performed including and excluding non-diagnostic CTA results. The no-treat/treat threshold model was used to determine the range of appropriate pretest probabilities for CTA. The threshold model was based on obtained post-test probabilities of less than 15% in case of negative CTA and above 50% in case of positive CTA. Sex, angina pectoris type, age, and number of computed tomography detector rows were used as clinical variables to analyse the diagnostic performance in relevant subgroups. RESULTS: Individual patient data from 5332 patients from 65 prospective diagnostic accuracy studies were retrieved. For a pretest probability range of 7-67%, the treat threshold of more than 50% and the no-treat threshold of less than 15% post-test probability were obtained using CTA. At a pretest probability of 7%, the positive predictive value of CTA was 50.9% (95% confidence interval 43.3% to 57.7%) and the negative predictive value of CTA was 97.8% (96.4% to 98.7%); corresponding values at a pretest probability of 67% were 82.7% (78.3% to 86.2%) and 85.0% (80.2% to 88.9%), respectively. The overall sensitivity of CTA was 95.2% (92.6% to 96.9%) and the specificity was 79.2% (74.9% to 82.9%). CTA using more than 64 detector rows was associated with a higher empirical sensitivity than CTA using up to 64 rows (93.4% v 86.5%, P=0.002) and specificity (84.4% v 72.6%, P<0.001). The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for CTA was 0.897 (0.889 to 0.906), and the diagnostic performance of CTA was slightly lower in women than in with men (area under the curve 0.874 (0.858 to 0.890) v 0.907 (0.897 to 0.916), P<0.001). The diagnostic performance of CTA was slightly lower in patients older than 75 (0.864 (0.834 to 0.894), P=0.018 v all other age groups) and was not significantly influenced by angina pectoris type (typical angina 0.895 (0.873 to 0.917), atypical angina 0.898 (0.884 to 0.913), non-anginal chest pain 0.884 (0.870 to 0.899), other chest discomfort 0.915 (0.897 to 0.934)). CONCLUSIONS: In a no-treat/treat threshold model, the diagnosis of obstructive CAD using coronary CTA in patients with stable chest pain was most accurate when the clinical pretest probability was between 7% and 67%. Performance of CTA was not influenced by the angina pectoris type and was slightly higher in men and lower in older patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012002780.