Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The clinical value of a negative multi-detector computed tomographic angiography in patients suspected of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

  • Cardiac
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis was to calculate the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) compared with coronary angiography (CAG) in incident patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD). We searched PubMed, Embase, bibliographies of original papers and reviews to identify original papers including ≥20 patients. Two independent reviewers selected papers and judged eligible papers on quality. Heterogeneity was assessed and homogeneous subgroups were pooled. Of the 15 included studies, ten provided moderately homogeneous patient-based analyses with absolute diagnostic numbers (n=630 patients). Pooled sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval: 85–92%). Scanners with 16 detectors (n=4) had higher sensitivities (pooled sensitivity: 91%) than four-detector scanners (n=6; pooling not possible due to heterogeneity). Seven studies reported sensitivity for a proximal stenosis, but different definitions were used making pooling impossible; sensitivities ranged from 75 to 100%. The sensitivity of four- and 16-detector MDCT is not sufficient to rule out any stenosis in patients suspected of CAD. No conclusions can be drawn with respect to the sensitivity for clinically relevant or proximal stenoses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marcus ML, Schelbert HL, Skorton DJ (1991) Cardiac imaging: a companion to Braunwald’s Heart disease

  2. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM et al (1999) ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 33:1756–1824

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. American Heart Association (2005) Heart disease and stroke statistics—2005 update. American Heart Association, Dallas

    Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson LW, Lozner EC, Johnson S et al (1989) Coronary arteriography 1984–1987: a report of the Registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. I. Results and complications. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 17:5–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S et al (1999) Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 282:1061–1066

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Haberl R, Tittus J, Bohme E et al (2005) Multislice spiral computed tomographic angiography of coronary arteries in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: an effective filter before catheter angiography? Am Heart J 149:1112–1119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F et al (2005) Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 46:147–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kefer J, Coche E, Legros G et al (2005) Head-to-head comparison of three-dimensional navigator-gated magnetic resonance imaging and 16-slice computed tomography to detect coronary artery stenosis in patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 46:92–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gaudio C, Mirabelli F, Alessandra L et al (2005) Noninvasive assessment of coronary artery stenoses by multidetector-row spiral computed tomography: comparison with conventional angiography. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 9:13–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lau GT, Ridley LJ, Schieb MC et al (2005) Coronary artery stenoses: detection with calcium scoring, CT angiography, and both methods combined. Radiology 235:415–422

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cademartiri F, Runza G, Marano R et al (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of 16-row multislice CT angiography in the evaluation of coronary segments. Radiol Med (Torino) 109:91–97

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, Krestin GP et al (2005) Improved diagnostic accuracy with 16-row multi-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:128–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuettner A, Beck T, Drosch T et al (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary imaging using 16-detector slice spiral computed tomography with 188 ms temporal resolution. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:123–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gerber BL, Coche E, Pasquet A et al (2005) Coronary artery stenosis: direct comparison of four-section multi-detector row CT and 3D navigator MR imaging for detection—initial results. Radiology 234:98–108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fine JJ, Hopkins CB, Hall PA et al (2004) Noninvasive coronary angiography: agreement of multi-slice spiral computed tomography and selective catheter angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 20:549–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoffmann U, Moselewski F, Cury RC et al (2004) Predictive value of 16-slice multidetector spiral computed tomography to detect significant obstructive coronary artery disease in patients at high risk for coronary artery disease: patient-versus segment-based analysis. Circulation 110:2638–2643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martuscelli E, Romagnoli A, D’Eliseo A et al (2004) Accuracy of thin-slice computed tomography in the detection of coronary stenoses. Eur Heart J 25:1043–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Martuscelli E, Razzini C, D’Eliseo A et al (2004) Limitations of four-slice multirow detector computed tomography in the detection of coronary stenosis. Ital Heart J 5:127–131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Herzog C, Britten M, Balzer JO et al (2004) Multidetector-row cardiac CT: diagnostic value of calcium scoring and CT coronary angiography in patients with symptomatic, but atypical, chest pain. Eur Radiol 14:169–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ropers D, Baum U, Pohle K et al (2003) Detection of coronary artery stenoses with thin-slice multi-detector row spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction. Circulation 107:664–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Giesler T, Baum U, Ropers D et al (2002) Noninvasive visualization of coronary arteries using contrast-enhanced multidetector CT: influence of heart rate on image quality and stenosis detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:911–916

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mennicke M, Giesler T, Ropers D et al (2002) Influence of heart rate on image quality and detection of coronary stenoses with multislice spiral CT. Biomed Tech (Berl) 47(Suppl 1 Pt 2):782–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nieman K, Rensing BJ, van Geuns RJ et al (2002) Usefulness of multislice computed tomography for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 89:913–918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nieman K, Oudkerk M, Rensing BJ et al (2001) Coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography. Lancet 357:599–603

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Achenbach S, Giesler T, Ropers D et al (2001) Detection of coronary artery stenoses by contrast-enhanced, retrospectively electrocardiographically-gated, multislice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 103:2535–2538

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Abramson JH (2004) WINPEPI (PEPI-for-Windows): computer programs for epidemiologists. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 1:6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zamora, J, Muriel, A, and Abraira, V (2003) Meta-Disc for Windows: a software package for the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests. XI Cochrane Colloquium. (Available at http://www.hrc.es/investigacion/metadisc.html)

  32. de Feyter PJ, Nieman K (2004) Noninvasive multi-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: an emerging clinical modality. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:1238–1240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nieman K, van Geuns RJ, Wielopolski P et al (2002) Noninvasive coronary imaging in the new millennium: a comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance techniques. Rev Cardiovasc Med 3:77–84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schoenhagen P, Halliburton SS, Stillman AE et al (2004) Noninvasive imaging of coronary arteries: current and future role of multi-detector row CT. Radiology 232:7–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kopp AF, Kuttner A, Trabold T et al (2004) Multislice CT in cardiac and coronary angiography. Br J Radiol 77(Spec No 1):S87–S97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schoepf UJ, Becker CR, Ohnesorge BM et al (2004) CT of coronary artery disease. Radiology 232:18–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nikolaou K, Poon M, Sirol M et al (2003) Complementary results of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the heart and coronary arteries: a review and future outlook. Cardiol Clin 21:639–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Achenbach S, Ropers D, Pohle K et al (2003) Clinical results of minimally invasive coronary angiography using computed tomography. Cardiol Clin 21:549–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rodenwaldt J (2003) Multislice computed tomography of the coronary arteries. Eur Radiol 13:748–757

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Christian TF (2005) Anatomy of an emerging diagnostic test: computed tomographic coronary angiography. Circulation 112:2222–2225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Duerinckx A (2003) Clinical utility of computed tomography and magnetic resonance techniques for noninvasive coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 42:1867–1878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang SZ, Hu XH, Zhang QW et al (2005) Evaluation of computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with a high heart rate using 16-slice spiral computed tomography with 0.37-s gantry rotation time. Eur Radiol 15:1105–1109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW et al (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 46:552–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CA et al (2005) High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation 112:2318–2323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all authors of original studies who provided us with additional data upon request. In particular, we thank K. Nieman for assisting in the initial translation of the Japanese paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

    H. J. van der Zaag-Loonen, R. Dikkers & M. Oudkerk

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    G. H. de Bock

Authors
  1. H. J. van der Zaag-Loonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Dikkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. H. de Bock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Oudkerk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. J. van der Zaag-Loonen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van der Zaag-Loonen, H.J., Dikkers, R., de Bock, G.H. et al. The clinical value of a negative multi-detector computed tomographic angiography in patients suspected of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 16, 2748–2756 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0312-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0312-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation