Abstract
Abstract
Background
Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is one of the common cardiac emergencies that pose a diagnostic challenge, especially in the absence of EKG changes or elevation in cardiac markers. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CT) has an established role in the evaluation of stable chest pain with ESC giving it class I recommendation. The role of CCTA in the management of NSTE-ACS is less clear.
Purpose
To evaluate the hypothesis of CT efficacy in identifying and managing patients with NSTE-ACS in comparison to the standard of care (SOC).
Methods
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared initial CT utilization vs SOC in patients presenting with acute chest pain with suspected or confirmed NSTE-ACS. SOC arm included initial evaluation and triaging by treating physician including but not limited to clinical observation, serial cardiac markers, stress testing, and invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Studies with follow-up data of 1 month or more were included. Outcomes evaluated were incidence of rehospitalization/ER visits post index visit, referral to ICA, and presence of significant lesion during ICA requiring revascularization.
Results
A total of 6,862 patients (3,663 in the CT arm and 3,199 in the SOC) were analyzed from 13 RCTs. No statistically significant difference was noted between two intervention arms with regards to repeat hospital visits [Odds ratio (OR): 1.02; 95% CI: 0.85–1.24; P=0.82; I2=0%], and referral to ICA (OR: 1.32: 95% CI: 0.95–1.83; P=0.10; I2=66). CT was however more likely to uncover significant lesions requiring revascularization compared to SOC arm (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.32–2.37; P=0.0001; I2=23%].
Conclusion
Our meta-analysis showed that in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS, CT is associated with similar rates of ICA referral and re-admissions albeit being more likely to uncover hemodynamically significant lesions that require revascularization. These findings are consistent with the finding of the recently published VERDICT trial that showed comparable efficacy between coronary CT and ICA. Further studies evaluating the long term cardiovascular outcomes are warranted.
Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding sources: None.