ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025
Computed tomography angiography in the diagnosis of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: redefining our first line of defense.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Approximately one-third of patients with suspected non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) have non-obstructive coronary artery disease. Low-risk patients might benefit from early non-invasive diagnostic testing that can appropriately select those without obstructive coronary artery disease and prevent unnecessary invasive coronary angiography (ICA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) in suspected NSTEMI. Methods: Patients with clinically suspected type 1 NSTEMI were included. In case ICA was indicated, CTA was performed prior to ICA. The accuracy of CTA to diagnose NSTEMI, assigned by an adjudicated final diagnosis committee, was investigated. Results: Of the 66 included patients, 40 (61%) were diagnosed with NSTEMI. CAD-RADS ≥ 3 (i.e. stenosis ≥50%) had a sensitivity of 95% (95%CI 83-99%), a specificity of 65% (95%CI 44-83%) and an overall accuracy of 83% (95%CI 72-91%). The Agatston score was significantly different between patients with and without NSTEMI (404 [IQR 132-883] and 31 [IQR 0-163], respectively, p < 0.001). Nineteen patients (29%) met the criteria of ≥2 high-risk plaque (HRP) features, which was more often present in patients with NSTEMI compared to those without NSTEMI (43% and 8%, respectively, p = 0.002). Combining all CTA parameters (CAD-RADS ≥ 3, Agatston score >1.000 and ≥2 HRP features) did not improve the diagnostic accuracy compared with CAD-RADS alone. Conclusion: CTA accurately diagnoses NSTEMI in patients with acute chest pain and elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels. Patients with NSTEMI more often presented with CAD-RADS ≥ 3, Agatston score >1.000 and HRP features.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.