Dataset Information

Coronary Evaluation Before Heart Valvular Surgery by Using Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography Versus Invasive Coronary Angiography.

ABSTRACT: Background Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a noninvasive, less expensive, low-radiation alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA). ICA is recommended for coronary evaluation before heart valvular surgery, and the supporting evidence for CCTA is insufficient. Our study is a single-center, prospective cohort study designed to evaluate the feasibility of CCTA instead of ICA in detection of coronary artery disease before surgery. Methods and Results Heart valvular surgery candidates were consecutively enrolled between April 2017 and December 2018. Nine hundred fifty-eight patients in the CCTA group underwent CCTA primarily, and those with ≥50% coronary stenosis or uncertain diagnosis underwent subsequent ICA. One thousand five hundred twenty-five patients in the ICA group underwent ICA directly before surgery. Coronary artery bypass grafting decision was made by surgeons according to CCTA or ICA results. Most of the patients (78.8%) in the CCTA group avoided invasive angiography. Thirty-day mortality (0.7% versus 0.9%, P=0.821), myocardial infarction (6.4% versus 6.9%, P=0.680 ), and low cardiac output syndrome (4.2% versus 2.8%, P=0.085) were similar in the CCTA and ICA groups. Median duration of follow-up was 19.3 months (interquartile range, 14.2-30.0 months), cumulative rates of mortality (2.6% versus 2.6%, P=0.882) and major adverse cardiac events (9.6% versus 9.0%, P=0.607) showed no difference between the 2 groups. Coronary evaluation expense was lower in the CCTA group ($149.6 versus $636.0, P<0.001). Conclusions The strategy of using CCTA as a doorkeeper in coronary evaluation before heart valvular surgery showed noninferiority in identification of candidates for coronary artery bypass grafting and postoperative safety.

SUBMITTER: Ren X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8475662 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine if coronary computed tomographic angiography enhances prediction of perioperative risk in patients before non-cardiac surgery and to assess the preoperative coronary anatomy in patients who experience a myocardial infarction after non-cardiac surgery.DesignProspective cohort study.Setting12 centers in eight countries.Participants955 patients with, or at risk of, atherosclerotic disease who underwent non-cardiac surgery.InterventionsCoronary computed tomographic angiography was performed preoperatively; clinicians were blinded to the results unless left main disease was suspected. Results were classified as normal, non-obstructive (<50% stenosis), obstructive (one or two vessels with ≥ 50% stenosis), or extensive obstructive (≥ 50% stenosis in two vessels including the proximal left anterior descending artery, three vessels, or left main).Main outcome measureComposite of cardiovascular death and non-fatal myocardial infarction within 30 days after surgery (primary outcome). This was the dependent variable in Cox regression. The independent variables were scores on the revised cardiac risk index and findings on coronary computed tomographic angiography.ResultsThe primary outcome occurred in 74 patients (8%). The model that included both scores on the revised cardiac risk index and findings on coronary computed tomographic angiography showed that coronary computed tomographic angiography provided independent prognostic information (P=0.014; C index=0.66). The adjusted hazard ratios were 1.51 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 5.10) for non-obstructive disease; 2.05 (0.62 to 6.74) for obstructive disease; and 3.76 (1.12 to 12.62) for extensive obstructive disease. For the model with coronary computed tomographic angiography compared with the model based on the revised cardiac risk index alone, with 30 day risk categories of <5%, 5-15%, and >15% for the primary outcome, the results of risk reclassification indicate that in a sample of 1000 patients that coronary computed tomographic angiography would have resulted appropriately in 17 net patients receiving a higher risk estimation among the 77 patients who would have experienced the primary outcome (P<0.001). Coronary computed tomographic angiography, however, would have resulted inappropriately in 98 net patients receiving a higher risk estimation, among the 923 patients who would not have experienced the primary outcome (P<0.001). Among patients who had a perioperative myocardial infarction, preoperative coronary anatomy showed extensive obstructive disease in 31% (22/71), obstructive disease in 41% (29/71), non-obstructive disease in 24% (17/71), and normal findings in 4% (3/71).ConclusionsThough findings on coronary computed tomographic angiography can improve estimation of risk for patients who will experience perioperative cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, findings are more than five times as likely to lead to an inappropriate overestimation of risk among patients who will not experience these outcomes. Perioperative myocardial infarction occurs across the spectrum of coronary artery disease, suggesting that there could be several pathophysiologic mechanisms.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the detection of relevant extracardiac findings (ECFs) on coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and evaluate the potential clinical benefit of their detection.MethodsThis is the prespecified subanalysis of ECFs in patients presenting with a clinical indication for ICA based on atypical angina and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) included in the prospective single-center randomized controlled Coronary Artery Disease Management (CAD-Man) study. ECFs requiring immediate therapy and/or further workup including additional imaging were defined as clinically relevant. We evaluated the scope of ECFs in 329 patients and analyzed the potential clinical benefit of their detection.ResultsECFs were detected in 107 of 329 patients (32.5%; CTA: 101/167, 60.5%; ICA: 6/162, 3.7%; p < .001). Fifty-nine patients had clinically relevant ECFs (17.9%; CTA: 55/167, 32.9%; ICA: 4/162, 2.5%; p < .001). In the CTA group, ECFs potentially explained atypical chest pain in 13 of 101 patients with ECFs (12.9%). After initiation of therapy, chest pain improved in 4 (4.0%) and resolved in 7 patients (6.9%). Follow-up imaging was recommended in 33 (10.0%; CTA: 30/167, 18.0%; ICA: 3/162, 1.9%) and additional clinic consultation in 26 patients (7.9%; CTA: 25/167, 15.0%; ICA: 1/162, 0.6%). Malignancy was newly diagnosed in one patient (0.3%; CTA: 1/167, 0.6%; ICA: 0).ConclusionsIn this randomized study, CTA but not ICA detected clinically relevant ECFs that may point to possible other causes of chest pain in patients without CAD. Thus, CTA might preclude the need for ICA in those patients.Trial registrationNCT Unique ID: 00844220 KEY POINTS: • CTA detects ten times more clinically relevant ECFs than ICA. • Actionable clinically relevant ECFs affect patient management and therapy and may thus improve chest pain. • Detection of ECFs explaining chest pain on CTA might preclude the need for performing ICA.

Dataset Information

Coronary Evaluation Before Heart Valvular Surgery by Using Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography Versus Invasive Coronary Angiography.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets