Dual-source CT versus single-source 64-section CT angiography for coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

To perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of single-source 64-section computed tomography (CT) versus dual-source CT angiography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD).

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for relevant original papers. Inclusion criteria were (1) significant CAD defined as ≥50% reduction in luminal diameter by invasive coronary angiography as reference standard; (2) single-source 64-section CT or dual-source CT was used; (3) results were reported in absolute numbers of true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative results or sufficiently detailed data for deriving these numbers were presented. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis.

Fifty-one papers including 3966 patients who underwent single-source 64-section CT and 2047 patients who underwent dual-source CT at a per-patient level were pooled. The diagnostic values of single-source 64-section CT versus dual-source CT were 97% versus 97% for sensitivity (p = 0.386), 78% versus 86% for specificity (p < 0.001), 90% versus 85% for positive predictive value (PPV; p < 0.001), 93% versus 97% for negative predictive value (NPV; p = 0.001), 6.8 versus 6.5 for positive likelihood ratio (p = 0.018), 0.04 versus 0.04 for negative likelihood ratio (p = 0.625), and 191.59 versus 207.37 for diagnostic odds ratio (p = 0.043), respectively.

Dual-source CT and single-source 64-section CT have similar negative likelihood ratios and, therefore, there was no significant difference in their utility to rule out CAD in intermediate-risk patients. However, compared to single-source 64-section CT, dual-source CT has significantly higher specificity, so that CT-based decisions for subsequent coronary catheter angiography are more accurate.