Impact of design characteristics among studies comparing coronary computed tomography angiography to noninvasive functional testing in chronic

Background Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is widely adopted to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). However, it is unknown to which extent study-specific characteristics yield different conclusions.Methods We summarized non-randomized and randomized studies comparing CCTA and noninvasive functional testing for CCS with information on the outcome of myocardial infarction (MI). We evaluated the differential effect according to study characteristics using random-effect meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustments.Results Fifteen studies (8 non-randomized, 7 randomized) were included. CCTA was associated with decrease in relative (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.62, P < .001) and absolute MI risk (risk difference (RD)-0.4%, 95%CI-0.6 to-0.1, P = .005). The results remained consistent among the non-randomized (RD-0.4%, 95%CI-0.7 to-0.1, P = .029), but not among the randomized trials where there was no difference in the observed risk (RD 0.2%, 95%CI-0.6 to 0.1, P = .158). CCTA was not associated with MI reduction in studies with clinical outcome definition (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.44, P = .212), research driven follow-up (OR 0.54, 95%CI 0.24 to 1.21, P = .090), central event assessment (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.21 to 1.86, P = .207), outcome adjudication (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.24 to 2.23, P = .178), or at low-risk of bias (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.24 to 2.23, P = .178).Conclusions Among studies of any design, CCTA was associated with lower risk of MI in CCS compared to non-invasive functional testing. This benefit was diminished among studies with clinical outcome definition, central outcome assessment/adjudication or at low-risk of bias. (Am Heart J 2022;256:104-116.)

Automated summary

CCTA is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) compared to non-invasive functional testing in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS), but this benefit is not significant in studies with clinical outcome definition, central outcome assessment/adjudication, or low-risk of bias.