Journal
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages 2748-2756Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0312-4
Keywords
angiography; coronary disease; diagnosis; tomography; meta-analysis
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The aim of this meta-analysis was to calculate the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) compared with coronary angiography (CAG) in incident patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD). We searched PubMed, Embase, bibliographies of original papers and reviews to identify original papers including >= 20 patients. Two independent reviewers selected papers and judged eligible papers on quality. Heterogeneity was assessed and homogeneous subgroups were pooled. Of the 15 included studies, ten provided moderately homogeneous patient-based analyses with absolute diagnostic numbers (n=630 patients). Pooled sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval: 85-92%). Scanners with 16 detectors (n=4) had higher sensitivities (pooled sensitivity: 91%) than four-detector scanners (n=6; pooling not possible due to heterogeneity). Seven studies reported sensitivity for a proximal stenosis, but different definitions were used making pooling impossible; sensitivities ranged from 75 to 100%. The sensitivity of four- and 16-detector MDCT is not sufficient to rule out any stenosis in patients suspected of CAD. No conclusions can be drawn with respect to the sensitivity for clinically relevant or proximal stenoses.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available