4.7 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of in-stent coronary restenosis detection with multislice spiral computed tomography: a meta-analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 217-225

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0743-6

Keywords

MSCT; computed tomography; restenosis; stent; invasive angiography; coronary angiography; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was designed to define the current role of multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) for the diagnosis of coronary in-stent restenosis using a meta-analytic process. Restenosis remains a limitation after coronary stent implantation and contributes to a substantial number of coronary re-assessments by conventional invasive coronary angiography (CA). We identified 15 studies (807 patients) evaluating in-stent restenosis by means of both MSCT (>= 16 slices) and conventional CA until February 2007. After data extraction the analysis was performed according to a random-effects model. The analysis pooled the results from 15 studies with a total of 1,175 stents. A substantial number of unassessable stents (13%) were excluded from the analysis underscoring the shortcomings of MSCT. With this major limitation the diagnostic performance of MSCT for in-stent restenosis detection can be summarized as follows: the sensitivity and specificity were 84% [95% confidence interval (CI) 77-89%] and 91% (95% CI 89-93%), respectively, with positive and negative likelihood ratios of 12.2 (95% CI 6.6-22.6) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.17-0.31), respectively, and with a diagnostic odds ratio of 67.9 (95% CI 34.4-134.1). MSCT has shortcomings difficult to overcome in daily practice for in-stent restenosis detection and continues to have moderately high sensitivity and specificity. The diagnostic role of this emerging technology as an alternative to CA for in-stent restenosis detection remains limited.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available