User login
WASHINGTON – When performed prior to revascularization, CT angiography almost doubles the likelihood of successful revascularization of chronic total occlusion relative to no CT angiography, according to a meta-analysis.
Because the meta-analysis relied primarily on retrospective data, the conclusion was characterized as hypothesis-generating. But the author, Wael Abuzeid, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., suggested that there are several arguments to be made for pursuing a randomized trial.
This is not a new idea, according to results of a systematic review of the literature. Although only four articles met prespecified criteria for entry into the meta-analysis that was eventually conducted, Dr. Abuzeid and his coauthors found 424 articles on this subject in a search of three literature databases.
Only one of the four studies entered into the meta-analysis involved prospective data collection, but three of the four found a significant advantage for preprocedural CTA when compared with no CTA for procedural success, meaning restoration of blood flow in the target CTO. The fourth study also associated preprocedural CTA with improved procedural success, but the advantage did not reach statistical significance.
When the data were combined for a meta-analysis, the odds ratio for procedural success for conducting a preprocedural CTA relative to no preprocedural CTA was 1.89 with a significant 95% confidence interval (1.18-3.04; P less than .05).
The four studies were published during 2012-2015. Two of them used CTA with only a 64-slice capacity, raising the possibility that an even greater improvement in results would have been achieved with CTA using the greater resolutions now available.
There were several important limitations of the study, particularly the potential for selection bias from the nonrandomized designs in the studies evaluated, Dr. Abuzeid acknowledged. However, the most likely selection bias would be funneling of more challenging cases to preprocedural CTA, a potential disadvantage for CTA if this resulted in a patient population likely to have a poor outcome.
Currently, few centers employ preprocedural CTA in routine management of CTO, according to Dr. Abuzeid.
“CTA prior to revascularization in CTO is not a standard approach even in complex patients,” Dr. Abuzeid said. However, he believes an argument can already be made for preprocedural CTA in some types of challenging patients, such as those with particularly long target lesions. In such cases, CTA could provide advance information about negative distal remodeling and the likelihood that a retrograde approach might be needed.
“For the junior operator, I think the information provided by preprocedural CTA could be very useful in planning,” Dr. Abuzeid said.
The arguments against preprocedural CTA include higher radiation exposure and a delay in the time to procedure by adding the extra step of first conducting the imaging study. In addition to verifying that procedural success is achieved with preprocedural CTA, these issues are among those that deserve evaluation in a prospective study.
“The appropriate randomized trial would be conducted at high-volume centers with all comers, not just complex patients, randomized to undergo a preprocedural CTA or no preprocedural imaging,” Dr. Abuzeid suggested. He said the appropriate primary outcome is relative success at restoring Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction grade 2 flow, but suggested that other endpoints, such as procedure time and rate of complications, would be useful for determining the value of this approach.
Dr. Abuzeid reports having no financial relationships.
SOURCE: Abuzeid W. CRT 18.
WASHINGTON – When performed prior to revascularization, CT angiography almost doubles the likelihood of successful revascularization of chronic total occlusion relative to no CT angiography, according to a meta-analysis.
Because the meta-analysis relied primarily on retrospective data, the conclusion was characterized as hypothesis-generating. But the author, Wael Abuzeid, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., suggested that there are several arguments to be made for pursuing a randomized trial.
This is not a new idea, according to results of a systematic review of the literature. Although only four articles met prespecified criteria for entry into the meta-analysis that was eventually conducted, Dr. Abuzeid and his coauthors found 424 articles on this subject in a search of three literature databases.
Only one of the four studies entered into the meta-analysis involved prospective data collection, but three of the four found a significant advantage for preprocedural CTA when compared with no CTA for procedural success, meaning restoration of blood flow in the target CTO. The fourth study also associated preprocedural CTA with improved procedural success, but the advantage did not reach statistical significance.
When the data were combined for a meta-analysis, the odds ratio for procedural success for conducting a preprocedural CTA relative to no preprocedural CTA was 1.89 with a significant 95% confidence interval (1.18-3.04; P less than .05).
The four studies were published during 2012-2015. Two of them used CTA with only a 64-slice capacity, raising the possibility that an even greater improvement in results would have been achieved with CTA using the greater resolutions now available.
There were several important limitations of the study, particularly the potential for selection bias from the nonrandomized designs in the studies evaluated, Dr. Abuzeid acknowledged. However, the most likely selection bias would be funneling of more challenging cases to preprocedural CTA, a potential disadvantage for CTA if this resulted in a patient population likely to have a poor outcome.
Currently, few centers employ preprocedural CTA in routine management of CTO, according to Dr. Abuzeid.
“CTA prior to revascularization in CTO is not a standard approach even in complex patients,” Dr. Abuzeid said. However, he believes an argument can already be made for preprocedural CTA in some types of challenging patients, such as those with particularly long target lesions. In such cases, CTA could provide advance information about negative distal remodeling and the likelihood that a retrograde approach might be needed.
“For the junior operator, I think the information provided by preprocedural CTA could be very useful in planning,” Dr. Abuzeid said.
The arguments against preprocedural CTA include higher radiation exposure and a delay in the time to procedure by adding the extra step of first conducting the imaging study. In addition to verifying that procedural success is achieved with preprocedural CTA, these issues are among those that deserve evaluation in a prospective study.
“The appropriate randomized trial would be conducted at high-volume centers with all comers, not just complex patients, randomized to undergo a preprocedural CTA or no preprocedural imaging,” Dr. Abuzeid suggested. He said the appropriate primary outcome is relative success at restoring Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction grade 2 flow, but suggested that other endpoints, such as procedure time and rate of complications, would be useful for determining the value of this approach.
Dr. Abuzeid reports having no financial relationships.
SOURCE: Abuzeid W. CRT 18.
WASHINGTON – When performed prior to revascularization, CT angiography almost doubles the likelihood of successful revascularization of chronic total occlusion relative to no CT angiography, according to a meta-analysis.
Because the meta-analysis relied primarily on retrospective data, the conclusion was characterized as hypothesis-generating. But the author, Wael Abuzeid, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., suggested that there are several arguments to be made for pursuing a randomized trial.
This is not a new idea, according to results of a systematic review of the literature. Although only four articles met prespecified criteria for entry into the meta-analysis that was eventually conducted, Dr. Abuzeid and his coauthors found 424 articles on this subject in a search of three literature databases.
Only one of the four studies entered into the meta-analysis involved prospective data collection, but three of the four found a significant advantage for preprocedural CTA when compared with no CTA for procedural success, meaning restoration of blood flow in the target CTO. The fourth study also associated preprocedural CTA with improved procedural success, but the advantage did not reach statistical significance.
When the data were combined for a meta-analysis, the odds ratio for procedural success for conducting a preprocedural CTA relative to no preprocedural CTA was 1.89 with a significant 95% confidence interval (1.18-3.04; P less than .05).
The four studies were published during 2012-2015. Two of them used CTA with only a 64-slice capacity, raising the possibility that an even greater improvement in results would have been achieved with CTA using the greater resolutions now available.
There were several important limitations of the study, particularly the potential for selection bias from the nonrandomized designs in the studies evaluated, Dr. Abuzeid acknowledged. However, the most likely selection bias would be funneling of more challenging cases to preprocedural CTA, a potential disadvantage for CTA if this resulted in a patient population likely to have a poor outcome.
Currently, few centers employ preprocedural CTA in routine management of CTO, according to Dr. Abuzeid.
“CTA prior to revascularization in CTO is not a standard approach even in complex patients,” Dr. Abuzeid said. However, he believes an argument can already be made for preprocedural CTA in some types of challenging patients, such as those with particularly long target lesions. In such cases, CTA could provide advance information about negative distal remodeling and the likelihood that a retrograde approach might be needed.
“For the junior operator, I think the information provided by preprocedural CTA could be very useful in planning,” Dr. Abuzeid said.
The arguments against preprocedural CTA include higher radiation exposure and a delay in the time to procedure by adding the extra step of first conducting the imaging study. In addition to verifying that procedural success is achieved with preprocedural CTA, these issues are among those that deserve evaluation in a prospective study.
“The appropriate randomized trial would be conducted at high-volume centers with all comers, not just complex patients, randomized to undergo a preprocedural CTA or no preprocedural imaging,” Dr. Abuzeid suggested. He said the appropriate primary outcome is relative success at restoring Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction grade 2 flow, but suggested that other endpoints, such as procedure time and rate of complications, would be useful for determining the value of this approach.
Dr. Abuzeid reports having no financial relationships.
SOURCE: Abuzeid W. CRT 18.
REPORTING FROM CRT 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In a meta-analysis of data from four studies, CT angiography almost doubled the likelihood of procedural success (OR 1.89; P less than .05).
Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis of four studies.
Disclosures: Dr. Abuzeid reports having no financial relationships.
Source: Abuzaid W. CRT 18.