Cargando…

Comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The impact of using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) as an initial examination on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with stable coronary artery disease and the occurrence of major operation-relat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xie, Qingya, Zhou, Lingling, Li, Ying, Zhang, Ruizhe, Wei, Han, Ma, Gaoxiang, Tang, Yuping, Xiao, Pingxi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10196209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37215543
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1010536
_version_ 1785044296703934464
author Xie, Qingya
Zhou, Lingling
Li, Ying
Zhang, Ruizhe
Wei, Han
Ma, Gaoxiang
Tang, Yuping
Xiao, Pingxi
author_facet Xie, Qingya
Zhou, Lingling
Li, Ying
Zhang, Ruizhe
Wei, Han
Ma, Gaoxiang
Tang, Yuping
Xiao, Pingxi
author_sort Xie, Qingya
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The impact of using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) as an initial examination on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with stable coronary artery disease and the occurrence of major operation-related complications is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the effects of ICA vs. CCTA on MACEs, all-cause death, and major operation-related complications. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) was conducted for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing MACEs between ICA and CCTA from January 2012 to May 2022. The primary outcome measure was analyzed using a random-effects model as a pooled odds ratio (OR). The main observations were MACEs, all-cause death, and major operation-related complications. RESULTS: A total of six studies, comprising 26,548 patients, met the inclusion criteria (ICA n = 8,472; CCTA n = 18,076). There were statistically significant differences between ICA and CCTA for MACE [OR 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06–1.77; p = 0.02], all-cause death (OR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.38–1.78; p < 0.00001), and major operation-related complications (OR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.23–3.61; p = 0.007) among patients with stable coronary artery disease. Subgroup analysis demonstrated statistically significant results in the impact of ICA or CCTA on MACEs according to the length of follow-up. Compared to CCTA, ICA was related to a higher incidence of MACEs in the subgroup with a short follow-up (≤3 years) (OR 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54–1.96; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, an initial examination with ICA was significantly associated with the risk of MACEs, all-cause death, and major procedure-related complications compared to CCTA in this meta-analysis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10196209
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101962092023-05-20 Comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis Xie, Qingya Zhou, Lingling Li, Ying Zhang, Ruizhe Wei, Han Ma, Gaoxiang Tang, Yuping Xiao, Pingxi Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine BACKGROUND: The impact of using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) as an initial examination on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with stable coronary artery disease and the occurrence of major operation-related complications is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the effects of ICA vs. CCTA on MACEs, all-cause death, and major operation-related complications. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) was conducted for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing MACEs between ICA and CCTA from January 2012 to May 2022. The primary outcome measure was analyzed using a random-effects model as a pooled odds ratio (OR). The main observations were MACEs, all-cause death, and major operation-related complications. RESULTS: A total of six studies, comprising 26,548 patients, met the inclusion criteria (ICA n = 8,472; CCTA n = 18,076). There were statistically significant differences between ICA and CCTA for MACE [OR 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06–1.77; p = 0.02], all-cause death (OR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.38–1.78; p < 0.00001), and major operation-related complications (OR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.23–3.61; p = 0.007) among patients with stable coronary artery disease. Subgroup analysis demonstrated statistically significant results in the impact of ICA or CCTA on MACEs according to the length of follow-up. Compared to CCTA, ICA was related to a higher incidence of MACEs in the subgroup with a short follow-up (≤3 years) (OR 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54–1.96; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, an initial examination with ICA was significantly associated with the risk of MACEs, all-cause death, and major procedure-related complications compared to CCTA in this meta-analysis. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10196209/ /pubmed/37215543 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1010536 Text en © 2023 Xie, Zhou, Li, Zhang, Wei, Ma, Tang and Xiao. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Xie, Qingya
Zhou, Lingling
Li, Ying
Zhang, Ruizhe
Wei, Han
Ma, Gaoxiang
Tang, Yuping
Xiao, Pingxi
Comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10196209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37215543
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1010536
work_keys_str_mv AT xieqingya comparisonofprognosisbetweencoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusinvasivecoronaryangiographyforstablecoronaryarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhoulingling comparisonofprognosisbetweencoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusinvasivecoronaryangiographyforstablecoronaryarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liying comparisonofprognosisbetweencoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusinvasivecoronaryangiographyforstablecoronaryarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangruizhe comparisonofprognosisbetweencoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusinvasivecoronaryangiographyforstablecoronaryarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT weihan comparisonofprognosisbetweencoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusinvasivecoronaryangiographyforstablecoronaryarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT magaoxiang comparisonofprognosisbetweencoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusinvasivecoronaryangiographyforstablecoronaryarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tangyuping comparisonofprognosisbetweencoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusinvasivecoronaryangiographyforstablecoronaryarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xiaopingxi comparisonofprognosisbetweencoronarycomputedtomographyangiographyversusinvasivecoronaryangiographyforstablecoronaryarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis