Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Flow of studies identified in literature search for systematic review of testing for coronary artery disease in potential kidney transplant recipients* Some studies investigate more than one test and so contribute to more than one test comparisonCIMT: carotid intimal medial thickness; DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; DSF: digital subtraction fluorography; EBCT: electron beam computed tomography; ECG: resting electrocardiography; Echo/LV: echocardiography (left ventricular dysfunction or cardiomegaly); Echo/MAC: echocardiography (mitral annular calcification); Echo/RWMA: echocardiography (resting wall motion abnormality); EST: exercise stress electrocardiography; EV: exercise ventriculography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Flow of studies identified in literature search for systematic review of testing for coronary artery disease in potential kidney transplant recipients

* Some studies investigate more than one test and so contribute to more than one test comparison

CIMT: carotid intimal medial thickness; DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; DSF: digital subtraction fluorography; EBCT: electron beam computed tomography; ECG: resting electrocardiography; Echo/LV: echocardiography (left ventricular dysfunction or cardiomegaly); Echo/MAC: echocardiography (mitral annular calcification); Echo/RWMA: echocardiography (resting wall motion abnormality); EST: exercise stress electrocardiography; EV: exercise ventriculography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Methodological design and reporting quality of studies included in meta‐analysis according to risk of bias in quality domains assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological design and reporting quality of studies included in meta‐analysis according to risk of bias in quality domains assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies

Methodological quality summary of studies: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Methodological quality summary of studies: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool

Accuracy of tests for coronary artery disease versus coronary angiography (forest plot); CIMT: carotid intimal medial thickness; DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; DSF: digital subtraction fluorography; EBCT: electron beam computed tomography; ECG: resting electrocardiography; Echo (LV): echocardiography (left ventricular dysfunction or cardiomegaly; Echo (MAC): echocardiography (mitral annular calcification); Echo (RWMA): echocardiography (resting wall motion abnormality); EST: exercise stress electrocardiography; EV: exercise ventriculography; FN: false negative; FP: false positive; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy; NS: not stated; TN: total negative; TP: total positive
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Accuracy of tests for coronary artery disease versus coronary angiography (forest plot); CIMT: carotid intimal medial thickness; DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; DSF: digital subtraction fluorography; EBCT: electron beam computed tomography; ECG: resting electrocardiography; Echo (LV): echocardiography (left ventricular dysfunction or cardiomegaly; Echo (MAC): echocardiography (mitral annular calcification); Echo (RWMA): echocardiography (resting wall motion abnormality); EST: exercise stress electrocardiography; EV: exercise ventriculography; FN: false negative; FP: false positive; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy; NS: not stated; TN: total negative; TP: total positive

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectivelyCIMT: carotid intimal medial thickness; DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; DSF: digital subtraction fluorography; EBCT: electron beam computed tomography; ECG: resting electrocardiography; Echo (LV): echocardiography (left ventricular dysfunction or cardiomegaly); Echo (MAC): echocardiography (mitral annular calcification); Echo (RWMA): echocardiography (resting wall motion abnormality); EST: exercise stress electrocardiography; EV: exercise ventriculography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectively

CIMT: carotid intimal medial thickness; DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; DSF: digital subtraction fluorography; EBCT: electron beam computed tomography; ECG: resting electrocardiography; Echo (LV): echocardiography (left ventricular dysfunction or cardiomegaly); Echo (MAC): echocardiography (mitral annular calcification); Echo (RWMA): echocardiography (resting wall motion abnormality); EST: exercise stress electrocardiography; EV: exercise ventriculography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography: Indirect comparison MPS versus DSE. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectively. The curves represent the summary receiver operator characteristic curves for MPS and DSE. The circles represent the summary estimate of test performance and the zone outline surrounding it represents the 95% confidence region of this summary estimateDSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography: Indirect comparison MPS versus DSE. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectively. The curves represent the summary receiver operator characteristic curves for MPS and DSE. The circles represent the summary estimate of test performance and the zone outline surrounding it represents the 95% confidence region of this summary estimate

DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography: indirect comparison MPS versus DSE, according to reference standard threshold. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectively. The curves represent the summary receiver operator characteristic curves for MPS and DSE. The circles represent the summary estimate of test performance and the zone outline surrounding it represents the 95% confidence region of this summary estimateDSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 7

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography: indirect comparison MPS versus DSE, according to reference standard threshold. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectively. The curves represent the summary receiver operator characteristic curves for MPS and DSE. The circles represent the summary estimate of test performance and the zone outline surrounding it represents the 95% confidence region of this summary estimate

DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography: indirect comparison MPS versus DSE, according to presence of partial verification. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectively. The curves represent the summary receiver operator characteristic curves for MPS and DSE. The circles represent the summary estimate of test performance and the zone outline surrounding it represents the 95% confidence region of this summary estimateDSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 8

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography: indirect comparison MPS versus DSE, according to presence of partial verification. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectively. The curves represent the summary receiver operator characteristic curves for MPS and DSE. The circles represent the summary estimate of test performance and the zone outline surrounding it represents the 95% confidence region of this summary estimate

DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy.

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography: Direct comparison MPS versus DSE. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectively. The lines connecting paired MPS and DSE studies denote studies which investigated the accuracy of MPS and DSE in the same study population (direct comparison)DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 9

Summary receiver operator curve plot of sensitivity versus specificity for performance of different tests versus coronary angiography: Direct comparison MPS versus DSE. Each symbol represents a study, with the height and width of each symbol being proportional to the inverse standard error of the sensitivity and specificity respectively. The lines connecting paired MPS and DSE studies denote studies which investigated the accuracy of MPS and DSE in the same study population (direct comparison)

DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

†Based on the positive and negative likelihood ratios calculated from the systematic review in studies which avoided partial verification and used a reference standard threshold of ≥70% stenosis. DSE had a positive likelihood ratio of 6.44 (95% CI 3.03 to 13.70) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.50). MPS had a positive likelihood ratio of 2.89 (95% CI 1.39 to 5.99) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.43 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.80).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 10

Based on the positive and negative likelihood ratios calculated from the systematic review in studies which avoided partial verification and used a reference standard threshold of ≥70% stenosis. DSE had a positive likelihood ratio of 6.44 (95% CI 3.03 to 13.70) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.50). MPS had a positive likelihood ratio of 2.89 (95% CI 1.39 to 5.99) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.43 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.80).

DSE.
Figuras y tablas -
Test 1

DSE.

MPS.
Figuras y tablas -
Test 2

MPS.

EST.
Figuras y tablas -
Test 3

EST.

EBCT.
Figuras y tablas -
Test 4

EBCT.

DSF.
Figuras y tablas -
Test 5

DSF.

EV.
Figuras y tablas -
Test 6

EV.

CIMT.
Figuras y tablas -
Test 7

CIMT.

Echo (RWMA).
Figuras y tablas -
Test 8

Echo (RWMA).

Echo (LV).
Figuras y tablas -
Test 9

Echo (LV).

Echo (MAC).
Figuras y tablas -
Test 10

Echo (MAC).

ECG.
Figuras y tablas -
Test 11

ECG.

Summary of findings Summary of results

Summary of results: Results of studies on cardiac testing in kidney transplant candidates

Review question: Comparison of non‐invasive cardiac screening tests with coronary angiography for the detection of significant CAD in potential kidney transplant recipients

Patient population: Kidney transplant candidates undergoing pre‐transplant cardiac evaluation

Setting: Investigations performed in hospital or in an outpatient setting

Geographical location: Studies were conducted in USA (12 studies), Brazil (4 studies), India, (3 studies) the UK (3 studies), Australia (1 study), Canada (1 study), and Spain (1 study)

Index test : Any non‐ or minimally invasive test used to assess risk of CAD.

Reference standard: Coronary angiography

Included studies: DSE (13 studies; 745 participants), MPS (9 studies; 582 participants), EST (2 studies; 129 participants), EBCT (1 study; 97 participants), DSF (1 study; 86 participants), exercise ventriculography (1 study; 35 participants), CIMT (1 study; 105 participants), resting wall motion abnormality on echocardiography (2 studies; 265 participants), left ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography (1 study; 52 participants), mitral annular calcification on echocardiography (1 study; 125 participants), resting ECG (3 studies; 263 participants).

Limitations

Only DSE and MPS were evaluated in detail, although these also had only a limited number of included comparisons with small sample sizes. No studies were found investigating cardiopulmonary exercise testing, CT coronary angiography, magnetic resonance angiography or cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Fewer than five studies were found for each of EBCT, resting ECG, conventional echocardiography, exercise ventriculography, DSF and CIMT. Sparse directly comparative data also resulted in low power to detect important differences in accuracy between tests.

Significant heterogeneity was present among studies investigating the same screening test. Although differences in study population characteristics (e.g. prevalence of chest pain) and test application (diagnostic test threshold, criteria for positive test, choice of stress agent and stress protocol, and operator variability) likely contributed to heterogeneity, we were hindered from estimating their contributions because of relatively sparse data, which resulted in low power.

Partial verification, where not all patients who received screening tests also received coronary angiography, occurred in 5/25 comparisons. This may have affected estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

Two different reference standard thresholds (≥ 70% stenosis or ≥ 50% stenosis) were used in the included studies, with most studies only using one reference standard threshold or the other. An overall analysis pooling the results of all studies regardless of threshold may introduce additional heterogeneity due to a threshold effect.

Results

Test

DSE

MPS

Number of studies [all studies]

13

9

Number of participants [all studies]

745

582

Pooled sensitivity (95% CI) [all studies]

0.79 (0.67 to 0.88)

0.74 (0.54 to 0.87)

Pooled specificity (95% CI) [all studies]

0.89 (0.81 to 0.94)

0.70 (0.51 to 0.84)

Number of studies [≥ 70% stenosis]

9

7

Number of participants [≥ 70% stenosis]

668

517

Pooled sensitivity (95% CI) [≥ 70% stenosis]

0.76 (0.60 to 0.87)

0.67 (0.48 to 0.82)

Pooled specificity (95% CI) [≥ 70% stenosis]

0.88 (0.78 to 0.94)

0.77 (0.61 to 0.88)

Number of false diagnoses of ≤ 70% coronary artery stenosis in a standard population of 100 patients (false negative rate)

24 (13 to 40)

per 100

33 (18 to 52)

per 100

Number of false diagnoses of ≥ 70% coronary artery stenosis in a standard population of 1000 patients (false positive rate)

12 (6 to 22)

per 100

23 (12 to 39)

per 100

Positive likelihood ratio [≥ 70% stenosis] (95% CI)

6.44 (3.03 to 13.70)

2.89 (1.39 to 5.99)

Negative likelihood ratio [≥ 70% stenosis] (95% CI)

0.26 (0.13 to 0.50)

0.43 (0.23 to 0.80)

Post test probability after positive screening test result for a patient with low risk (10% to 29% pre test probability) disease

42% to 72%

24% to 54%

Post test probability after positive screening test result for a patient with intermediate risk (30% to 59% pre test probability) disease

73% to 90%

55% to 81%

Post test probability after positive screening test result for a patient with high risk (60% to 90% pre test probability) disease

91% to 98%

81% to 96%

Post test probability after negative screening test result for a patient with low risk (10% to 29% pre test probability) disease

3% to 10%

5% to 15%

Post test probability after negative screening test result for a patient with intermediate risk (30% to 59% pre test probability) disease

10% to 27%

16% to 38%

Post test probability after negative screening test result for a patient with high risk (60% to 90% pre test probability) disease

28% to 70%

39% to 79%

Conclusions and comments

Both tests, especially DSE, have a role as triage tests for intermediate risk transplant candidates, with negative results precluding the need for further evaluation with coronary angiography, thereby avoiding unnecessary risk to patients and potentially reducing healthcare costs.

Given the wide heterogeneity in the estimates for both DSE and MPS, there is still considerable uncertainty in the true post‐test probabilities of each test.

Current evidence suggests that, where feasible, DSE should be used as the screening investigation of choice over MPS.

Applicability of tests in clinical practice

Both DSE and MPS have a role as triage tests for the intermediate risk transplant candidates, with negative results reducing the need for further evaluation with coronary angiography. In high risk patients, a positive non‐invasive DSE or MPS confirms the high risk of severe CAD, but a negative result does not conclusively rule out severe CAD. In these patients, one may consider proceeding immediately to coronary angiography and avoid using functional tests.

The relatively low sensitivity and specificity of both DSE and MPS however means that they are not perfect triage tests and a significant number of patients will either have their significant CAD missed (false negatives) or be referred in vain for coronary angiography (false positive).

Despite the shortcomings of the non‐invasive tests in their role as triage tests, the very select nature of the population and the unique challenges facing cardiac investigation in this population (particularly, the need to avoid complications arising from an invasive gold standard) and the lack of an alternate better performing test means that we are forced to accept an imperfect triage test.

Functional testing may provide additional prognostic information, although an investigation into this was not included under the scope of this review. 

Costs

None of the studies included a cost‐effectiveness evaluation. MPS is known to be more expensive than DSE, although both are less expensive than the reference standard, coronary angiography. 

CAD ‐ coronary artery disease; CI: confidence interval; CIMT: carotid intimal medial thickness; DSE: Dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings Summary of results
Table 1. Description of index tests

Test

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Type of result

Presence of cut‐off values

Screening tests

MPS

Stress
Exercise
dipyridamole
dobutamine

Radionucleotide
thallium‐201 or Tc‐99m sestamibi radionucleotide agents

 

This compares perfusion of myocardium at rest and after a ‘stress’ such as exercise or drugs (e.g. dipyridamole).

When coronary arteries are normal, ‘stress’ results in vasodilatation and increased coronary blood flow. However, diseased coronary arteries cannot dilate because they are already maximally dilated and there is no increase in blood flow after a stress. MPS reveals these areas as regions of decreased perfusion. A reversible perfusion defect is a sign of ischaemia. A fixed defect (when there is decreased perfusion before, during and after the stress) is an indicator of infarction.

Pharmacological agents overcome limitations of exercise testing in patients with kidney disease

Non‐invasive

Provides information regarding functional status of myocardium under stress conditions

Neither 100% sensitive nor specific

Radiation dose

Results subject to interpretation and reader bias

False positives due to increase in attenuation artefacts caused by left ventricular hypertrophy

False negatives due to balanced ischaemia (e.g. triple vessel disease)

More expensive than exercise ECG

Dichotomous (i.e. stress test positive or stress test negative)

None. However, whether a stress test is interpreted as positive or negative depends largely on observer interpretation

DSE

Stress
Exercise
dobutamine

Stress echocardiography compares the regional wall motion and thickness of myocardium both at rest and after stress. Regional systolic dysfunction is usually caused by CAD.

Pharmacological stress agent overcomes limitations of exercise testing in patients with kidney disease

Non‐invasive

No radiation dose

Provides information regarding functional status of myocardium under stress conditions

Provides assessment of ventricular size and function

Neither 100% sensitive nor specific

Results subject to interpretation and reader bias

Operator dependent

Acoustic windows not possible in up to 20% of subjects

Hypertensive response to stress agent possible

Cardiomyopathies may also show regional variation in function

Dichotomous (i.e. stress test positive or stress test negative)

None. However, whether a stress test is interpreted as positive or negative depends largely on observer interpretation

Exercise ECG

Bruce protocol stress ECG

Patient exercises on a treadmill while connected to an ECG. The level of exercise is increased in progressive stages. The patient's symptoms and blood pressure response are checked repeatedly. Ischaemic ECG changes or angina symptoms brought on by exercise are highly suggestive of underlying CAD

Non‐invasive

Provides information regarding functional status of myocardium under stress conditions

Neither 100% sensitive nor specific

Results subject to interpretation and reader bias

Often limited by the inability of CKD patients to achieve an adequate peak exercise workload, development of exercise‐induced hypotension

High proportion have abnormal baseline ECG (left ventricular hypertrophy)

Dichotomous (i.e. stress test positive or stress test negative)

No. However, whether a stress test is interpreted as positive or negative depends largely on observer interpretation

Coronary artery calcium score

EBCT
Multidetector computed tomography

Cardiac calcium scoring is a non‐invasive test that uses computed tomography to detect the presence of calcium in plaque on the walls of the arteries of the heart (coronary arteries). A calcium score is then derived, calculated as a summation of all calcified lesions in the coronary arteries. The calcium score is then compared with a reference range appropriate to a patient's age and sex. High calcium scores are associated with higher risks of cardiovascular events

Non‐invasive

Neither 100% sensitive nor specific

Radiation dose

 

Continuous

There is no uniformly agreed cut‐off value at which patients are considered at high risk of CAD. We planned to analyse results by combining data from studies which share identical cut‐off values

Echocardiography

Trans‐thoracic
Trans‐oesophageal

An ultrasound of the heart that enables assessment of structure and function.

Impairment in systolic function can result from pre‐existing CAD

Provides information regarding myocardial function and regional wall abnormalities, which may suggest pre‐existing ischaemia or MI

Enables assessment of structure

Neither highly sensitive nor specific

Does not provide any information of reversible ischaemia

Results subject to interpretation and reader bias

Dichotomous (e.g. presence or absence of resting wall motion abnormality)

None

CT coronary angiography

Specialised form of CT that enables imaging of the heart and computerised reconstruction of coronary arteries, permitting assessment of the lumen and vessel walls

Non‐invasive

Enables diagnosis of precise location and severity of each lesion as opposed to vascular territory affected, as is the case for most functional tests.

Assesses not only the lumen of the vessel but also the wall. It can also demonstrate soft atheromatous plaques, which cannot be demonstrated on conventional coronary angiography

Radiation dose

Contrast nephropathy

Inability to provide opportunity for immediate intervention (as opposed to coronary angiography)

Dichotomous (i.e. presence or absence of significant CAD)

Yes (i.e. ≥ 50% stenosis or ≥ 70% stenosis)

We planned to manage the issue of different cut points by involving an analysis that included:

  • All studies regardless of threshold of CAD on coronary angiography (these will include both studies which have ≥ 50% stenosis and ≥ 70% stenosis

  • Only studies which had ≥ 70% stenosis threshold

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

MRI of the heart that enables evaluation of its structure and function

Non‐invasive

No radiation dose

Enables assessment of structure of myocardium

High spatial resolution means low inter‐observer variability

Neither highly sensitive nor specific

 

Dichotomous (e.g. presence or absence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction)

None

Resting ECG

Transthoracic interpretation of the electrical activity of the heart over time captured and externally recorded by skin electrodes

Provides information regarding the electrical function of the myocardium, which may suggest pre‐existing ischaemia, left ventricular hypertrophy or arrhythmias

Neither sensitive nor specific

Does not provide any information of reversible ischaemia

Dichotomous (i.e. presence or absence of certain ECG features)

None

CIMT

Measurement of the thickness of artery walls, usually by external ultrasound, to detect both the presence and to track the progression of atherosclerotic disease in humans. Used as a surrogate marker for atherosclerosis

Non‐invasive

Neither highly sensitive nor specific

Does not provide any information on cardiac function

Continuous

Yes. This will vary depending on the institution (e.g. 0.75 mm)

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing

Evaluates both cardiac and pulmonary function. Cardiac function is evaluated in terms of aerobic capacity and respiratory function.

The subject is exercised on a bicycle ergometer or treadmill. The test enables calculation of maximal aerobic capacity and the point during exercise where anaerobic metabolism is used to supplement aerobic metabolism as a source of energy. These can be measured via gas exchange data

Non‐invasive measurement of ventricular function, respiratory function and cellular function via measurement of gas exchange, as well as detection of myocardial ischaemia

Excellent method of evaluating fitness and operative fitness

Not commonly performed

Dichotomous (e.g. stress ECG positive or stress ECG negative; presence or absence of cardiac failure) and

Continuous (e.g. measurement of the maximum aerobic capacity and anaerobic threshold)

Yes, although these will vary for different variables and for different institutions

DSF

Used to detect coronary artery calcification. Digital subtraction improves resolution of conventional fluoroscopic methods

Non‐invasive

Non exercise

Not commonly used

Radiation dose

Dichotomous (i.e. presence or absence of calcification)

None

Exercise radionucleotide ventriculography

Technique for a combined assessment of exercise capacity and an evaluation of ventricular size and performance

 

Not commonly used

Radiation dose

Dichotomous (i.e. stress test positive or stress test negative)

None. However, whether a stress test is interpreted as positive or negative depends largely on observer interpretation

Reference standard

Coronary angiography

Coronary catheterisation is an invasive procedure to access the coronary circulation and blood filled chambers of the heart using a catheter. It can be performed for both diagnostic and interventional (treatment) purposes. It assesses the diameter of coronary artery lumens, heart chamber size and heart muscle contraction performance

Gold standard for detecting CAD.

Enables diagnosis of precise location and severity of each lesion

Intervention (PTCA) possible during procedure

High cost

Lack of sensitivity to intramural coronary atherosclerosis

Risk of complications

Intravenous contrast media may worsen kidney function

Little information on function

Radiation dose

Results subject to interpretation and reader bias, although to a lesser extent than functional tests

Dichotomous (i.e. presence or absence of significant CAD)

Yes (i.e. ≥ 50% stenosis or ≥ 70% stenosis).

We managed the issue of different cut points by involving an analysis which included:

  • All studies regardless of threshold of CAD on coronary angiography (these will include both studies which have ≥ 50% stenosis and ≥ 70% stenosis

  • Only studies which had ≥ 70% stenosis threshold

CAD: coronary artery disease; CIMT: carotid intimal medial thickness; CT: computed tomography; ECG: electrocardiograph; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; PTAC: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Description of index tests
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies

Study

Country

Participants

Diabetic patients (%)

Angina (%)

Hypertensive (%)

 Male (%)

Reference threshold (% stenosis)

TP

FP

FN

TN

Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE)

Bates 1996

USA

17

100

NA

98

64

50

9

1

1

6

Brennan 1997

USA

12

56

21

90

45

50

4

1

2

5

Cai 2010

USA

38

54

NA

86

64

70

15

2

8

13

De Lima 2003

Brazil

89

30

25

95

77

70

15

7

19

48

Ferreira 2007

Brazil

126

27

12

NA

69

70

24

14

10

78

Gang 2007

India

40

100

5

92

90

70

9

1

10

20

Garcia‐Canton 1998

Spain

27

NA

NA

NA

67

70

11

2

1

13

Herzog 1999

USA

50

82

16

94

60

70

12

8

4

26

Jassal 2007

Canada

18

38

NA

77

44

50

0

0

0

18

Reis 1995

USA

30

64

30

96

63

50

22

1

1

6

Sharma 2005

UK

125

39

42

91

64

70

32

5

4

84

Sharma 2009

UK

140

38

27

92

64

70

36

5

4

95

West 2000

USA

33

NA

NA

NA

NA

70

12

8

1

12

Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS)

Boudreau 1990

USA

80

100

12.5

NA

64

70

36

8

6

30

De Lima 2003

Brazil

65

30

25

95

77

70

8

10

15

32

Garcia‐Canton 1998

Spain

27

NA

NA

NA

67

70

11

3

1

12

Garg 2000

India

19

100

NA

100

88

50

9

4

2

4

Gowdak 2010

Brazil

219

100

NA

92

69

70

85

31

52

51

Krawczynska 1988

USA

46

NA

NA

NA

NA

50

20

18

0

8

Marwick 1990

USA

45

51

33

81

71

70

4

9

10

22

Vandenberg 1996

USA

41

100

0

NA

NA

75

10

6

6

19

Worthley 2003

Australia

40

78

18

98

48

70

13

3

2

22

Stress electrocardiography (EST)

Bennett 1978

USA

4

100

NA

100

36

70

3

1

0

0

Sharma 2005

UK

125

39

42

91

64

70

13

8

23

81

Electron beam computed tomography (EBCT)

Rosario 2010

Brazil

97

38

29

90

65

70

16

25

9

47

Sharples 2004

UK

18

NA

NA

NA

50

75

*

*

*

*

Digital subtraction fluorography (DSF)

Marwick 1989

USA

86

29

11

36

27

70

28

17

8

33

Exercise ventriculography

Vandenberg 1996

USA

35

100

0

NA

NA

75

7

7

7

14

Carotid intimal media thickness (CIMT)

Modi 2006

India

105

58

24

100

NA

97

38

14

4

49

Echocardiography (resting wall motion abnormality)

Sharma 2005

UK

125

39

42

91

64

70

11

4

25

85

Sharma 2009

UK

140

38

27

92

64

70

13

5

27

95

Echocardiography (cardiomegaly or LV dysfunction)

Garg 2000

India

19

100

NA

100

88

50

8

5

19

20

Echocardiography (mitral annular calcification)

Sharma 2005

UK

125

39

42

91

64

70

22

25

14

64

Resting ECG (pathological Q waves, left ventricular hypertrophy, ST depression ≥ 1 mm, ST elevation ≥ 1 mm, T wave inversion or bundle branch block)

Gang 2007

India

40

100

5

92

90

70

9

12

10

9

Garg 2000

India

98

100

NA

100

88

50

51

1

22

24

Sharma 2005

UK

125

39

42

91

64

70

27

14

9

75

FN: false negative; FP: false positive; NA: not available; TN: total negative; TP: total positive

* Study unable to contribute data to meta‐analysis as it reported results per coronary vessel, and not per patient

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies
Table 3. Comparison of summary estimates of test performance for dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS)

Test

Studies (N)

Sensitivity (95% CI)

Specificity (95% CI)

Diagnostic odds ratio (95% CI)

AUC

P value for difference in accuracy*

Overall results: including all studies

MPS

9

0.74

(0.54 to 0.87)

0.70

(0.51 to 0.84)

6.69

(2.35 to 19.03)

0.78

0.02

DSE

13

0.79

(0.67 to 0.88)

0.89

(0.81 to 0.94)

29.98

(12.17 to 73.89)

0.91

Only including studies where reference standard threshold ≥ 70% coronary artery stenosis on coronary angiography

MPS

7

0.67

(0.48 to 0.82)

0.77

(0.61 to 0.88)

6.70

(1.84 to 24.41)

0.78

0.09

DSE

9

0.76

(0.60 to 0.87)

0.88

(0.78 to 0.94)

23.01

(8.08 to 65.51)

0.90

Only including studies where partial verification was avoided

MPS

8

0.68

(0.51 to 0.81)

0.75

(0.60 to 0.86)

6.45

(2.12 to 19.64)

0.78

0.03

DSE

9

0.80

(0.64 to 0.90)

0.89

(0.79 to 0.95)

34.28

(11.10 to 105.93)

0.92

Only including studies which avoided partial verification and had reference standard threshold ≥ 70% coronary artery stenosis on coronary angiography

MPS

7

0.67

(0.48 to 0.82)

0.77

(0.61 to 0.88)

6.70

(1.84 to 24.41)

0.78

0.09

DSE

8

0.78

(0.59 to 0.89)

0.88

(0.76 to 0.94)

25.22

(7.68 to 82.80)

0.90

AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS: myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

* P values for this variable were calculated using the likelihood ratio test in SAS (PROC NLMIXED), and represented the final P value obtained from a backward elimination approach used to eliminate non‐significant terms from the original hierarchical model.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Comparison of summary estimates of test performance for dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS)
Table 4. Comparison of systematic reviews studying the test performance of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and dobutamine stress echocardiography

Review

Population

DSE

MPS

Sensitivity (95% CI)

Specificity (95% CI)

Sensitivity (95% CI)

Specificity (95% CI)

Cochrane review

Kidney transplant candidates only

0.79 (0.67 to 0.88)

0.89 (0.81 to 0.94)

0.74 (0.54 to 0.87)

0.70 (0.51 to 0.84)

Fleischmann 1998

General population

0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)

0.77 (0.74 to 0.80)

0.87 (0.86 to 0.88)

0.64 (0.60 to 0.68)

Schinkel 2003

General population

0.80 (NS)

0.86 (NS)

0.84 (NS)

0.77 (NS)

DSE: dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPS; myocardial perfusion scintigraphy; NS ‐ not stated

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Comparison of systematic reviews studying the test performance of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and dobutamine stress echocardiography
Table Tests. Data tables by test

Test

No. of studies

No. of participants

1 DSE Show forest plot

13

745

2 MPS Show forest plot

9

582

3 EST Show forest plot

2

129

4 EBCT Show forest plot

1

97

5 DSF Show forest plot

1

86

6 EV Show forest plot

1

35

7 CIMT Show forest plot

1

105

8 Echo (RWMA) Show forest plot

2

265

9 Echo (LV) Show forest plot

1

52

10 Echo (MAC) Show forest plot

1

125

11 ECG Show forest plot

3

263

Figuras y tablas -
Table Tests. Data tables by test