Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of CT angiography (CTA) and exercise electrocardiography (XECG) in a symptomatic population with a low–intermediate prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD).
Design: Prospective registry.
Setting: Tertiary university hospital.
Patients: 471 consecutive ambulatory patients with stable chest pain complaints, mean (SD) age 56 (10), female 227 (48%), pre-test probability for significant CAD >5%.
Intervention: All patients were intended to undergo both 64-slice, dual-source CTA and an XECG. Clinically driven quantitative catheter angiography was performed in 98 patients.
Main outcome measures: Feasibility and interpretability of, and association between, CTA and XECG, and their diagnostic performance with invasive coronary angiography as reference.
Results: CTA and XECG could not be performed in 16 (3.4%) vs 48 (10.2%, p<0.001), and produced non-diagnostic results in 3 (0.7%) vs 140 (33%, p<0.001). CTA showed ⩾1 coronary stenosis (⩾50%) in 140 patients (30%), XECG was abnormal in 93 patients (33%). Results by CTA and XECG matched for 185 patients (68%, p = 0.63). Catheter angiography showed obstructive CAD in 57/98 patients (58%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of CTA to identify patients with ⩾50% stenosis was 96%, 37%, 67% and 88%, respectively; compared with XECG: 71%, 76%, 80% and 66%, respectively. Quantitative CTA slightly overestimated diameter stenosis: 6 (21)% (R = 0.71), compared with QCA. Of the 312 patients (66%) with a negative CTA, 44 (14%) had a positive XECG, but only 2/17 who underwent catheter angiography had significant CAD.
Conclusion: CTA is feasible and diagnostic in more patients than XECG. For interpretable studies, CTA has a higher sensitivity, but lower specificity for detection of CAD.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Ethics approval Approved by the institutional review board of the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.