Evaluation of stable angina by coronary computed tomographic angiography versus standard of care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: There is limited data comparing Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) versus the usual Standard of care (SOC) in patients with suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare CCTA versus SOC in patients with stable CAD.
Methods: We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CCTA with SOC, which included various functional testing approaches for evaluating stable CAD. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for unstable angina (UA), invasive angiography, revascularization, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Results: We identified 6 RCTs with 19,881 patients with stable CAD, of which 9995 underwent CCTA, and 9886 underwent SOC. There were no significant differences between CCTA and SOC in terms of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.91; 95 % CI: 0.70-1.19; p = 0.50), MI (RR: 0.78; 95 % CI: 0.58-1.05; p = 0.11), hospitalizations for UA (RR: 1.20; 95 % CI: 0.95-1.51;p = 0.12), invasive angiography (RR: 0.71; 95 % CI: 0.32-1.61; p = 0.42), revascularization (RR:1.25; 95 % CI: 0.83-1.89; p = 0.29), PCI (RR: 1.20; 95 % CI: 0.78-1.85; p = 0.40), and CABG rates (RR: 0.89; 95 % CI: 0.530-1.49; p = 0.65).
Conclusion: In patients with stable CAD, CCTA is associated with similar outcomes compared to the usual Standard of care. Given its potential to quickly rule out severe obstructive disease, its ability to provide non-invasive physiology and identify non-obstructive CAD with plaque information makes it an attractive addition to the available armamentarium to evaluate chest pain.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)