scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of dynamic CZT-SPECT in coronary artery disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariska Panjer ◽  
Magdalena Dobrolinska ◽  
Nils R. L. Wagenaar ◽  
Riemer H. J. A. Slart
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Emission Tomography ◽  
Bivariate Model ◽  
Spect Mpi ◽  
Czt Spect ◽  
Artery Disease

Abstract Background With the appearance of cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras, dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has been introduced, but comparable data to other MPI modalities, such as quantitative coronary angiography (CAG) with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and positron emission tomography (PET), are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic CZT single-photon emission tomography (SPECT) in coronary artery disease compared to quantitative CAG, FFR, and PET as reference. Materials and Methods Different databases were screened for eligible citations performing dynamic CZT-SPECT against CAG, FFR, or PET. PubMed, OvidSP (Medline), Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched on the 5th of July 2020. Studies had to meet the following pre-established inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials, retrospective trails or observational studies relevant for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, and performing CZT-SPECT and within half a year the methodological references. Studies which considered coronary stenosis between 50% and 70% as significant based only on CAG were excluded. Data extracted were sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Quality was assessed with QUADAS-2 and statistical analysis was performed using a bivariate model. Results Based on our criteria, a total of 9 studies containing 421 patients were included. For the assessment of CZT-SPECT, the diagnostic value pooled analysis with a bivariate model was calculated and yielded a sensitivity of 0.79 (% CI 0.73 to 0.85) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92). Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 17.82 (95% CI 8.80 to 36.08, P < 0.001). Positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 3.86 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.38, P < 0.001) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.33, P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion Based on the results of the current systematic review and meta-analysis, dynamic CZT-SPECT MPI demonstrated a good sensitivity and specificity to diagnose CAD as compared to the gold standards. However, due to the heterogeneity of the methodologies between the CZT-SPECT MPI studies and the relatively small number of included studies, it warrants further well-defined study protocols.

scholarly journals Discrimination capability of pretest probability of stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis suggesting how to improve validation procedures

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e047677
Author(s):  
Pierpaolo Mincarone ◽  
Antonella Bodini ◽  
Maria Rosaria Tumolo ◽  
Federico Vozzi ◽  
Silvia Rocchiccioli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Stable Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
First Line ◽  
Discrimination Capability ◽  
Artery Disease

ObjectiveExternally validated pretest probability models for risk stratification of subjects with chest pain and suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), determined through invasive coronary angiography or coronary CT angiography, are analysed to characterise the best validation procedures in terms of discriminatory ability, predictive variables and method completeness.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesGlobal Health (Ovid), Healthstar (Ovid) and MEDLINE (Ovid) searched on 22 April 2020.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies validating pretest models for the first-line assessment of patients with chest pain and suspected stable CAD. Reasons for exclusion: acute coronary syndrome, unstable chest pain, a history of myocardial infarction or previous revascularisation; models referring to diagnostic procedures different from the usual practices of the first-line assessment; univariable models; lack of quantitative discrimination capability.MethodsEligibility screening and review were performed independently by all the authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus among all the authors. The quality assessment of studies conforms to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). A random effects meta-analysis of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for each validated model was performed.Results27 studies were included for a total of 15 models. Besides age, sex and symptom typicality, other risk factors are smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia. Only one model considers genetic profile. AUC values range from 0.51 to 0.81. Significant heterogeneity (p<0.003) was found in all but two cases (p>0.12). Values of I2 >90% for most analyses and not significant meta-regression results undermined relevant interpretations. A detailed discussion of individual results was then carried out.ConclusionsWe recommend a clearer statement of endpoints, their consistent measurement both in the derivation and validation phases, more comprehensive validation analyses and the enhancement of threshold validations to assess the effects of pretest models on clinical management.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139388.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document