TY - JOUR
T1 - Coronary CTA and CT-FFR in trans-catheter aortic valve implantation candidates
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Becker, Leonie M.
AU - Peper, Joyce
AU - van Ginkel, Dirk Jan
AU - Overduin, Daniël C.
AU - van Es, Hendrik W.
AU - Rensing, Benno J.M.W.
AU - Timmers, Leo
AU - ten Berg, Jurriën M.
AU - Mohamed Hoesein, Firdaus A.A.
AU - Leiner, Tim
AU - Swaans, Martin J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2024.
PY - 2025/3
Y1 - 2025/3
N2 - Objectives: Screening for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) could prevent unnecessary invasive coronary angiography (ICA) procedures during work-up for trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) improves CCTA accuracy in chest pain patients. However, its reliability in the TAVI population is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses CCTA and CT-FFR in TAVI candidates. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for studies regarding CCTA and/or CT-FFR in TAVI candidates. Primary endpoint was correct identification and rule-out of obstructive CAD. Results were pooled in a meta-analysis. Results: Thirty-four articles were part of the meta-analysis, reporting results for CCTA and CT-FFR in 7235 and 1269 patients, respectively. Reference standard was mostly anatomical severity of CAD. At patient level, pooled CCTA sensitivity was 94.0% and specificity 72.4%. CT-FFR sensitivity was 93.2% and specificity 70.3% with substantial variation between studies. However, in studies that compared both, CT-FFR performed better than CCTA. Sensitivity of CCTA versus CT-FFR was 74.9% versus 83.9%, and specificity was 65.5% versus 89.8%. Conclusions: Negative CCTA accurately rules out CAD in the TAVI population. CCTA could lead to significant reduction in pre-TAVI ICA, but false positives remain high. Diagnostic accuracy of CT-FFR was comparable to that of CCTA in our meta-analyses, but in studies performing a direct comparison, CT-FFR performed better than CCTA. However, as most studies were small and used CT-FFR software exclusively available for research, a large study on CT-FFR in TAVI work-up using commercially available CT-FFR software would be appropriate before considering routine implementation. Key Points: Question Coronary artery disease (CAD) screening with invasive coronary angiography before trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is often retrospectively unnecessary, revealing no obstructive CAD. Findings Coronary CTA ruled out CAD in approximately half of TAVI candidates. CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) performed similarly overall but better than coronary CTA in direct comparison. Clinical relevance Addition of coronary CTA to TAVI planning-CT to screen for obstructive CAD could reduce negative invasive coronary angiographies in TAVI work-up. CT-FFR could reduce false-positive coronary CTA results, improving its gatekeeper function in this population, but more data is necessary.
AB - Objectives: Screening for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) could prevent unnecessary invasive coronary angiography (ICA) procedures during work-up for trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) improves CCTA accuracy in chest pain patients. However, its reliability in the TAVI population is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses CCTA and CT-FFR in TAVI candidates. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for studies regarding CCTA and/or CT-FFR in TAVI candidates. Primary endpoint was correct identification and rule-out of obstructive CAD. Results were pooled in a meta-analysis. Results: Thirty-four articles were part of the meta-analysis, reporting results for CCTA and CT-FFR in 7235 and 1269 patients, respectively. Reference standard was mostly anatomical severity of CAD. At patient level, pooled CCTA sensitivity was 94.0% and specificity 72.4%. CT-FFR sensitivity was 93.2% and specificity 70.3% with substantial variation between studies. However, in studies that compared both, CT-FFR performed better than CCTA. Sensitivity of CCTA versus CT-FFR was 74.9% versus 83.9%, and specificity was 65.5% versus 89.8%. Conclusions: Negative CCTA accurately rules out CAD in the TAVI population. CCTA could lead to significant reduction in pre-TAVI ICA, but false positives remain high. Diagnostic accuracy of CT-FFR was comparable to that of CCTA in our meta-analyses, but in studies performing a direct comparison, CT-FFR performed better than CCTA. However, as most studies were small and used CT-FFR software exclusively available for research, a large study on CT-FFR in TAVI work-up using commercially available CT-FFR software would be appropriate before considering routine implementation. Key Points: Question Coronary artery disease (CAD) screening with invasive coronary angiography before trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is often retrospectively unnecessary, revealing no obstructive CAD. Findings Coronary CTA ruled out CAD in approximately half of TAVI candidates. CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) performed similarly overall but better than coronary CTA in direct comparison. Clinical relevance Addition of coronary CTA to TAVI planning-CT to screen for obstructive CAD could reduce negative invasive coronary angiographies in TAVI work-up. CT-FFR could reduce false-positive coronary CTA results, improving its gatekeeper function in this population, but more data is necessary.
KW - Aortic valve stenosis
KW - Computed tomography angiography
KW - Coronary artery disease
KW - Fractional flow reserve (myocardial)
KW - Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85213697740&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-024-11211-7
DO - 10.1007/s00330-024-11211-7
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85213697740
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 35
SP - 1552
EP - 1569
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
IS - 3
ER -