Coronary CT Angiography vs Functional Stress Testing in Chest Pain Evaluation;  A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy, Revascularization Rates, and Cost-Effectiveness

Abeeha Mahmood; Farhan Faisal; Aisha Saleh Alshamsi; Sana Farooq; Sonia Sajjad; Zonash Khalid; Moeed Akbar Malik; Hafsa Malik; Asmaa Hamza; Sumaira Wazir

doi:10.70749/ijbr.v3i5.1345

Authors

Abeeha Mahmood CMH Lahore Medical College, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
Farhan Faisal Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Aisha Saleh Alshamsi University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
Sana Farooq HBS Medical and Dental College, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Sonia Sajjad HBS Medical and Dental College, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Zonash Khalid HBS Medical and Dental College, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Moeed Akbar Malik Department of Medicine, Shaheena Jamil Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad, KP, Pakistan.
Hafsa Malik Federal Medical College, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Asmaa Hamza HBS Medical and Dental College, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Sumaira Wazir HBS Medical and Dental College, Islamabad, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i5.1345

Keywords:

Coronary CT Angiography, Functional Stress Testing, Chest Pain, Diagnostic accuracy, Target Lesion Revascularization, Cost-effectiveness, Coronary Artery Disease, Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Chest pain is a common clinical feature and medical diagnostic dilemma in both emergency and outpatient care. There are two major non-invasive methods for the management of suspected CAD (coronary artery disease), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), and functional stress testing (FST). With recent advancement in technologies CCTA has been identified as a good alternative for early triage but doubt still exits as to how this is superior in terms of diagnosis, as downstream therapeutic decisions as well as the monetary implications with former stress testing modalities. Objectives: This meta-analysis will provide comparison of CCTA and Functional stress testing with regard to (1) diagnostic accuracy for obstructive CAD, (2) rates of downstream revascularization and (3) overall cost-effectiveness in patients coming for evaluation of chest pain. Methodology: This study has been carried out, as systematic review and meta-analysis (in line with PRISMA guidelines). A total of 27 original studies published from 2007-2024 were included comprising randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort with direct comparisons of CCTA and FST. Searched databases were PubMed, Embase and Scopus. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and revascularization rates, and cost metrics were pooled using random effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted, by risk stratification as well as clinical setting (acute stomach pain versus stable stomach pain). Results: CCTA showed greater pooled sensitivity (95.2%) and NPV (97.4%) than FST (sensitivity 79.1%, NPV 89.6%) for detection of obstructive CAD. The Revascularization rates were higher in CCTA group (14.6%) compared to FST group, (9.8%) inferring a direct route to invasive treatment over anatomically proven disease. Despite slight increase in cost of initial imaging, the CCTA was more cost-effective in terms of decreased downstream testing and shorter hospital stay as well as fewer non conclusive evaluations. Heterogeneity was low to moderate in all outcomes (I²> < 40%). Conclusion: CCTA is superior when it comes to diagnostic accuracy and it comes with higher corresponding rates of appropriate revascularization than functional stress testing. Although imaging costs may be more upfront, the net analysis of benefits vis-à- vis cost in the case of both emergency and outpatient chest pain analysis supports CCTA. The results also advocate a wider implementation of CCTA as a frontline diagnostic tool, including low-to-intermediate risk populations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bittencourt, M. S., Hulten, E. A., Murthy, V. L., Cheezum, M. K., Rochitte, C. E., Di Carli, M. F., & Blankstein, R. (2016). Clinical outcomes after evaluation of stable chest pain by coronary computed tomographic angiography versus usual care: A meta-analysis. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging, 9(4), e004419.

https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.004419

Chen, Y., Fan, Y., Yin, Z., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Han, Z., & Wang, C. (2016). Coronary computed tomographic angiography for patients with low-to-intermediate risk chest pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget, 8(2), 2096–2103.

https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.13782

Di, M. F., Arbab-Zadeh, A., George, R., Chen, M., Kofoed, K., Dewey, M., Vavere, A., Foster, C., Dorbala, S., Blankstein, R., Texter, J., Laham, R., Nomura, C., Roos, A. D., Lima, J., Clouse, M., Brinker, J., & Miller, J. (2013). COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION SPECT AND CORONARY CT ANGIOGRAPHY FOR DIAGNOSIS OF CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 61(10), E1107–E1107.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(13)61107-9

Douglas, P. S., Hoffmann, U., Patel, M. R., Mark, D. B., Al-Khalidi, H. R., Cavanaugh, B., et al. (2015). Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(14), 1291–1300.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1415516

El-Hayek, G., Benjo, A., Uretsky, S., Al-Mallah, M., Cohen, R., Bamira, D., Chavez, P., Nascimento, F. O., Santana, O., A.G. Patel, R., & Cavalcante, J. L. (2014). Meta-analysis of coronary computed tomography angiography versus standard of care strategy for the evaluation of low risk chest pain: Are randomized controlled trials and cohort studies showing the same evidence? International Journal of Cardiology, 177(1), 238–245.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.09.012

Ferencik, M., Mayrhofer, T., Bittner, D. O., Emami, H., Puchner, S. B., Lu, M. T., et al. (2018). Use of high-risk plaque features for risk stratification of patients with stable chest pain: A secondary analysis of the PROMISE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiology, 3(2), 144–152.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2017.4973

Foy, A. J., Dhruva, S. S., Peterson, B., Mandrola, J. M., Morgan, D. J., & Redberg, R. F. (2017). Coronary computed tomography angiography vs functional stress testing for patients with suspected coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(11), 1623–1631.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.4772

Goldstein, J. A., Chinnaiyan, K. M., Abidov, A., O'Neill, W. W., Gallagher, M. J., Raff, G. L., et al. (2011). The CT-STAT (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Systematic Triage of Acute Chest Pain Patients to Treatment) trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 58(14), 1414–1422.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.03.068

Goldstein, J. A., Gallagher, M. J., O'Neill, W. W., Ross, M. A., O'Neil, B. J., & Raff, G. L. (2007). A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 49(8), 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2006.10.061

Hamilton-Craig, C., Fifoot, A., Hansen, M., Chan, J., Walters, D. L., & Branch, K. R. (2014). Diagnostic performance and cost of CT angiography versus stress ECG—a randomized prospective study of suspected acute coronary syndrome chest pain in the emergency department (CT-COMPARE). International Journal of Cardiology, 177(3), 867–873.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.09.001

Hoffmann, U., Truong, Q. A., Schoenfeld, D. A., Chou, E. T., Woodard, P. K., Nagurney, J. T., et al. (2012). Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. New England Journal of Medicine, 367(4), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1201161

Hulten, E., Pickett, C., Bittencourt, M. S., Villines, T. C., Petrillo, S. P., Di Carli, M. F., & Blankstein, R. (2013). Outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 61(8), 880–892.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.003

Linde, J. J., Kofoed, K. F., Sørgaard, M., Kelbæk, H., Jensen, G. B., Nielsen, W. B., et al. (2013). Cardiac computed tomography guided treatment strategy in patients with recent acute-onset chest pain: Results from the randomized, controlled trial: Cardiac CT in the Treatment of Acute Chest Pain (CATCH). International Journal of Cardiology, 168(6), 5257–5262.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.08.020

Litt, H. I., Gatsonis, C., Snyder, B., Singh, H., Miller, C. D., Entrikin, D. W., et al. (2012). CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. New England Journal of Medicine, 366(15), 1393–1403.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1201161

Miller, A. H., Pepe, P. E., Peshock, R., Rios, T. A., Smith, E. R., & Stoler, R. C. (2011). Is coronary computed tomography angiography a resource sparing strategy in the risk stratification and evaluation of acute chest pain? Results of a randomized controlled trial. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18(5), 458–467.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01059.x

Min, J. K., Koduru, S., Dunning, A. M., Cole, J. H., Hines, J. L., Gransar, H., et al. (2012). Coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for near-term quality of life, cost, and radiation exposure: A prospective multicenter randomized pilot trial. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, 6(4), 274–283.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2012.07.001

Nielsen, L. H., Ortner, N., Nørgaard, B. L., Achenbach, S., Leipsic, J., & Abdulla, J. (2014). The diagnostic accuracy and outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography vs conventional functional testing in patients with stable angina pectoris: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging, 15(9), 961–971.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeu027

Pontone, G., Guaricci, A. I., Palmer, S. C., Andreini, D., Verdecchia, M., Fusini, L., et al. (2016). Coronary computed tomography angiography in the evaluation of chest pain of suspected cardiac origin. Circulation, 133(24), 2330–2340.

https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.017593

Rossi, A., Papadopoulou, S. L., Pugliese, F., Weustink, A. C., Mollet, N. R., Cademartiri, F., et al. (2014). Coronary computed tomography angiography vs. stress testing in patients with chest pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging, 15(9), 961–971.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeu096

Rossi, A., Papadopoulou, S. L., Pugliese, F., Weustink, A. C., Mollet, N. R., Cademartiri, F., van Mieghem, C. A. G., & Krestin, G. P. (2014). Coronary computed tomography angiography vs. stress testing in patients with chest pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging, 15(9), 990–1000. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeu105

Sandfort, V., Lima, J. A. C., & Bluemke, D. A. (2015). Noninvasive imaging of coronary artery disease: Magnetic resonance angiography and computed tomography angiography. Circulation Research, 116(2), 292–307.

https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.303573

SCOT-HEART Investigators. (2015). Coronary CT angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): An open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. The Lancet, 385(9985), 2383–2391.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60291-4

Shaw, L. J., Hausleiter, J., Achenbach, S., Al-Mallah, M. H., Berman, D. S., Budoff, M. J., et al. (2017). Coronary computed tomographic angiography as a gatekeeper to invasive diagnostic and surgical procedures in stable coronary artery disease. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 10(10 Pt A), 1208–1218.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.06.013

Stojanovska, J., Kazerooni, E. A., & Hall, C. (2016). CT of coronary artery disease. Clinical Chest Medicine, 37(1), 27–38.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccm.2015.10.001

Takakuwa, K. M., Halpern, E. J., Shofer, F. S., & Hollander, J. E. (2007). A comparison of stress testing and coronary computed tomographic angiography in ED chest pain patients. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 25(8), 794–800.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2007.01.029

Thomas, D. M., Mehta, P. K., & Shaw, L. J. (2020). Diagnostic and prognostic value of CCTA vs functional testing. Current Cardiology Reports, 22(9), 84.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-020-01323-4

Williams, M. C., Hunter, A., Shah, A. S. V., Assi, V., Lewis, S., Smith, J., Berry, C., Boon, N. A., & Newby, D. E. (2016). Use of coronary computed tomographic angiography to guide management of patients with chest pain: An analysis of cost, safety, and radiation exposure. Heart, 102(2), 85–91.

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308852