Efficacy and safety of coronary computed tomography angiography in patients with a high clinical likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The CAT-CAD trial showed that coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) in patients with a high prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and indications for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) reduces the number of patients undergoing ICA by two-thirds and nearly eradicates non-actionable ICAs. However, the long-term benefits of this non-invasive strategy remain unknown. AIMS: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of a non-invasive strategy employing coronary CTA vs. ICA as the first-line imaging test in stable patients with a high clinical likelihood of obstruc-tive CAD. METHODS: The long-term outcomes were evaluated for 36 months following randomization and included the efficacy outcome (analyzed as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): all-cause death, acute coronary syndrome, unplanned coronary revascularization, urgent hospitalization for a cardiovascular reason, a stroke) and the safety outcome (analyzed as a cumulative incidence of serious adverse events). RESULTS: One hundred and twenty participants at a mean age of 60.6 (7.9) years (female, 35.0%) were randomized with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to coronary CTA and direct ICA as the first-line anatomical test for suspected obstructive CAD. There were no significant differences between both diagnostic strategies neither in terms of the long-term efficacy (MACE occurrence: 15.5% in coronary CTA group vs. 16.7% in ICA group; log-rank P = 0.89) nor the long-term safety (cumulative number of serious adverse events: 36 vs. 38; P = 0.79, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of the randomized CAT-CAD trial confirms that the strategy employing coronary CTA is an effective and safe, non-invasive, outpatient-based alternative to ICA for patients with a high clinical likelihood of obstructive CAD.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.