SynthesisEuropean radiology2025
Coronary CT angiography alone versus with CT perfusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing approaches for chest pain.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Research Progress in Imaging Evaluation of Myocardial Microcirculation.International journal of general medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the prognostic value of stress Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll studies evaluating patients with chest pain with CTP plus coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) alone or versus CCTA were included. The primary analysis included studies comparing CCTA plus CTP vs CCTA alone, while in the secondary analysis we analyzed the incidence of each outcome across all seven studies, two- and single-arm.
resultsSeven double- and single-arm studies were included (two randomized controlled trials and five observational ones) with 3587 patients (2101 evaluated with CTP plus CCTA and 1486 with CCTA alone).In the primary analysis including 4 studies, after a median follow-up of 17 months, the rates of MACEs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91-1.57, p = 0.21) and all-cause death (OR 0.41, 0.11-1.47, p = 0.17) were similar. Patients managed according to CCTA alone had higher rates of total ICA (OR 2.42, 1.99-2.94, p < 0.00001) and ICA without subsequent revascularization (OR 2.85, 1.23-6.61, p = 0.01). Conversely, the rate of ICA with subsequent revascularization was higher in patients who underwent CCTA plus CTP (OR 0.39, 0.22-0.69, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of recurrent MI (OR 0.94, 0.15-5.83, p = 0.95) and unplanned revascularization (OR 0.69, 0.19-2.51, p = 0.57, all CI 95%) between the two approaches. These results were confirmed in the secondary analysis.
conclusionA coronary imaging approach based on perfusion evaluation in addition to anatomic assessment was comparable to CCTA alone in terms of MACE, myocardial infarctions and unplanned revascularizations up to 2 years. Patients evaluated with CTP less frequently underwent ICA, which did, however, result in a higher rate of stent implantation. KEY POINTS: Question Does the addition of stress Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) improve the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of patients with chest pain compared to CCTA alone? Findings Stress CTP combined with CCTA reduces unnecessary invasive coronary angiography and increases revascularization rates without significantly impacting MACE, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. Clinical relevance Incorporating stress CTP into CCTA optimizes care by reducing unnecessary invasive procedures and improving tailored treatment strategies for patients with stable and unstable chest pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40055231What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.