Overview with Meta-analysis of Systematic Reviews of the Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in the Emergency Department

<div><p>Abstract Background: The high prevalence of CAD, as well as your impact on health expenditure and the various treatment options to reduce morbidity and mortality related to CAD, comes to develop a diagnostic tool precis and with important findings in the Emergency Department. Objetive: To conduct an overview with meta-analysis to compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews (SR) on the diagnostic and prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to assess acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED). Methods: We included SR of primary studies that evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic value of CCTA ≥ 64 channels in the ED. The studies were conducted in patients at low and intermediate risk for coronary artery disease (CAD). Quality assessment was performed using PRISMA and approved reviews that scored ≥ 80%. Two authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. Spearman correlation test, Chi-square test, Cochran's Q test or Higgins and Thompson statistical I2 were used. For meta-analysis, "mada" package statistical software R Core Team, 2015, was used. The significance level adopted was 95%. Results: Four reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview, resulting in 13 articles after applying the exclusion criteria, and only 10 of these were used for meta-analysis, adding up to a total of 4831 patients (mean age, 54 ± 6 years; 51% male), of whom 46% were hypertensive, 32% had dyslipidemia, 13% had diabetes and 26% had a family history of premature CAD. In the meta-analysis, 9 studies defined CCTA positive in the presence of luminal lesions ≥ 50%, while 1 study defined it as luminal lesions ≥ 70%. Sensitivity ranged from 77% to 98%, and specificity, from 73% to 100%. The univariate analysis showed homogeneity of diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) [Q = 8.5 (df = 9), p = 0.48 and I2 = 0%]. The pooled mean DOR for CCTA in primary analyses was 4.33 (95% CI: 3.47 - 5.18). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.982 (95% CI: 0.967 - 0.999). There was no death, 29 (0.6%) infarcts, 92 (1.9%) revascularizations and 312 (6.4%) invasive coronary angiographies. The diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome occurred in 7.3% of the 1655 patients included in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: The use of CCTA as a tool for stratification of patients at low or intermediate cardiovascular risk, who are in the ED with chest pain, has high accuracy, safety, reduces length of hospital stay and probably the costs, producing an early diagnosis and more effective decision making. (Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2017; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)</p></div