BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) remains challenging. It is uncertain whether hybrid imaging can improve diagnostic accuracy for CAD.
METHODS: This is a systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis. We searched PubMed and The Cochrane Library for recent (≥ 2010) systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies on non-invasive imaging for CAD. Study-level data were extracted from them, and pooled with pairwise and multivariate meta-analytic methods, using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) or invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) as reference standards, focusing on sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS: Details from 661 original studies (71,823 patients) were pooled. Pairwise meta-analysis using ICA as reference showed that anatomic imaging was associated with the best diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity = 0.95 [95% confidence interval 0.94-0.96], specificity = 0.83 [0.81-0.85]), whereas using FFR as reference identified hybrid imaging as the best test (sensitivity = 0.87 [0.83-0.90], specificity = 0.82 [0.76-0.87]). Multivariate meta-analysis confirmed the superiority of anatomic imaging using ICA as reference (sensitivity = 0.96, specificity = 0.83), and hybrid imaging using FFR as reference (sensitivity = 0.88 [0.86-0.91], specificity = 0.82 [0.77-0.87]).
CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive hybrid imaging tests appear superior to anatomic or functional only tests to diagnose ischemia-provoking coronary lesions, whereas anatomic imaging is best to diagnose and/or rule out angiographically significant CAD.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registry Number CRD42018088528.
|Number of pages||12|
|Journal||Journal of Nuclear Cardiology|
|Publication status||Published - Oct 2020|