We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Diagnostic performance of 16- and 64-section spiral CT for coronary artery bypass graft assessment: meta-analysis.
Radiology 2008 June
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of 16- and 64-section spiral computed tomography (CT) to help assess coronary artery bypass grafts (CABGs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and BioMed Central databases were searched for relevant original articles published up to May 2007. Major criteria for article inclusion were that it (a) used multisection CT as a diagnostic test for the assessment of significant lesions (occlusion or >50% stenosis) of CABG, (b) used a 16- or 64-section scanner, and (c) used coronary angiography as the reference standard. After data extraction, the analysis was performed according to a random-effects model. Between-study statistical heterogeneity was also assessed by using the Cochran Q chi(2) test.
RESULTS: Of 158 screened articles, 15 fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Graft assessability (including distal anastomosis) ranged from 78%-100% among all included studies (mean, 92.4%; 90% with 16- and 96% with 64-section CT; P < .001). Statistical heterogeneity was observed for specificity and positive likelihood ratio (LR), justifying the use of the random-effects model. The analysis, pooled from 15 studies (723 patients, 2023 CABGs), provided the following results for the assessment of graft obstruction (occlusion and >50% stenosis): sensitivity, 97.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 96%, 98.6%); specificity, 96.7% (95% CI: 95.6%, 97.5%); positive predictive value, 92.7% (95% CI: 90.5%, 94.6%); negative predictive value, 98.9% (95% CI: 98.2%, 99.4%); positive LR, 23.42 (95% CI: 13.69, 40.07); negative LR, 0.045 (95% CI: 0.028, 0.071); and diagnostic odds ratio, 780.32 (95% CI: 379.12, 1606.1).
CONCLUSION: Multisection CT provided high accuracy for the evaluation of CABG obstruction in assessable conduits, and might be used as a noninvasive tool for the evaluation of suspected graft dysfunction in patients who are at high risk for complications from coronary angiography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and BioMed Central databases were searched for relevant original articles published up to May 2007. Major criteria for article inclusion were that it (a) used multisection CT as a diagnostic test for the assessment of significant lesions (occlusion or >50% stenosis) of CABG, (b) used a 16- or 64-section scanner, and (c) used coronary angiography as the reference standard. After data extraction, the analysis was performed according to a random-effects model. Between-study statistical heterogeneity was also assessed by using the Cochran Q chi(2) test.
RESULTS: Of 158 screened articles, 15 fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Graft assessability (including distal anastomosis) ranged from 78%-100% among all included studies (mean, 92.4%; 90% with 16- and 96% with 64-section CT; P < .001). Statistical heterogeneity was observed for specificity and positive likelihood ratio (LR), justifying the use of the random-effects model. The analysis, pooled from 15 studies (723 patients, 2023 CABGs), provided the following results for the assessment of graft obstruction (occlusion and >50% stenosis): sensitivity, 97.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 96%, 98.6%); specificity, 96.7% (95% CI: 95.6%, 97.5%); positive predictive value, 92.7% (95% CI: 90.5%, 94.6%); negative predictive value, 98.9% (95% CI: 98.2%, 99.4%); positive LR, 23.42 (95% CI: 13.69, 40.07); negative LR, 0.045 (95% CI: 0.028, 0.071); and diagnostic odds ratio, 780.32 (95% CI: 379.12, 1606.1).
CONCLUSION: Multisection CT provided high accuracy for the evaluation of CABG obstruction in assessable conduits, and might be used as a noninvasive tool for the evaluation of suspected graft dysfunction in patients who are at high risk for complications from coronary angiography.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app