Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Versus Invasive Coronary Angiography in Stable Chest Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) among patients with stable chest pain has been studied in several trials with conflicting results.METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CCTA first versus direct ICA among patients with stable chest pain, who were initially referred to ICA. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the 2 strategies. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% CIs were computed for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively.RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with a total of 5727 patients were included, of whom 51.1% were referred to CCTA and 22.5% of patients had evidence of ischemia on a prior functional test. In the follow-up ranging from 1 to 3.5 years, 660 of the 2928 patients randomized to CCTA first underwent ICA (23%). Patients who underwent CCTA had lower rates of coronary revascularization (RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.66-0.84]; P<0.001) and stroke (RR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.26-0.98]; P=0.043). Cardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.24-1.23]; P=0.146), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.64-1.10]; P=0.198), nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.63-1.88]; P=0.768), and cardiovascular hospitalizations (RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39]; P=0.669) did not differ significantly between groups.CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable chest pain referred for ICA, CCTA avoided the need for ICA in 77% of patients otherwise referred for ICA. CCTA was associated with a reduction in the rates of coronary revascularization and stroke compared with direct ICA.