Accordingly, only in selected patients, 64-MDCT may serve as a potential alternative noninvasive method to rule out ISR. However, still a relatively large proportion of stents remains uninterpretable. The symmetric area under the curve value was 0.94, indicating good agreement between 64-MDCT and invasive coronary angiography.Ħ4-MDCT has a good diagnostic accuracy for ISR detection with a particularly high negative predictive value. Accuracy tests with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing 64-MDCT vs invasive coronary angiography showed that pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (random effect model) values were: 86% (95% CI 80-91%), 93% (95% CI 91-95%), 12.32 (95% CI 7.26-20.92), 0.18 (95% CI 0.12-0.28) for binary ISR detection. On average, 9% of stents were unassessable (range 0-42%). Nine studies with a total of 598 patients with 978 stents included were considered eligible. Standard meta-analytic methods were applied.
Inclusion criteria were (1) 64-MDCT was used as a diagnostic test for ISR, with >50% diameter stenosis selected as the cut-off criterion for significant ISR, using invasive coronary angiography and quantitative coronary angiography as the standard of reference (2) absolute numbers of true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative results could be derived. MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and BioMed Central database searches were performed until April 2009 for original articles. We sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) compared with invasive coronary angiography for in-stent restenosis (ISR) detection.
0 kommentar(er)
