Display options
Cite
Zhang YQ, Jiang YF, Hong L, et al. Diagnostic value of cadmium-zinc-telluride myocardial perfusion imaging versus coronary angiography in coronary artery disease: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(9):e14716doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014716.
Zhang, Y. Q., Jiang, Y. F., Hong, L., Chen, M., Zhang, N. N., Yang, H. J., & Zhou, Y. F. (2019). Diagnostic value of cadmium-zinc-telluride myocardial perfusion imaging versus coronary angiography in coronary artery disease: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Medicine, 98(9), e14716. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014716
Zhang, Yi-Qing, et al. "Diagnostic value of cadmium-zinc-telluride myocardial perfusion imaging versus coronary angiography in coronary artery disease: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis." Medicine vol. 98,9 (2019): e14716. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014716
Zhang YQ, Jiang YF, Hong L, Chen M, Zhang NN, Yang HJ, Zhou YF. Diagnostic value of cadmium-zinc-telluride myocardial perfusion imaging versus coronary angiography in coronary artery disease: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Mar;98(9):e14716. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014716. PMID: 30817614; PMCID: PMC6831125.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Mar;98(9):e14716. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014716.

Diagnostic value of cadmium-zinc-telluride myocardial perfusion imaging versus coronary angiography in coronary artery disease: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

Medicine

Yi-Qing Zhang, Yu-Feng Jiang, Lu Hong, Min Chen, Nan-Nan Zhang, Hua-Jia Yang, Ya-Feng Zhou

Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, P. R. China.

PMID: 30817614 PMCID: PMC6831125 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014716

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rapid progress has been made in research of cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) technology in the last few years, which might serve as a new method to diagnose coronary artery disease. However, compared with coronary angiography, the diagnostic value of CZT is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate diagnosis value of coronary angiography versus CZT in coronary artery disease.

METHODS: We searched the database for eligible researches associated with CZT- myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and invasive coronary angiography, extracted the relevant data, and rigorously screened it according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The accuracy indicators included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative likelihood ratios.

RESULTS: According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we finally found 20 studies containing 2350 patients in this search. Pooled results showed that sensitivity of CZT-MPI was 0.84% and 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.78 to 0.89, specificity was 0.72, 95% CI (0.62-0.76), the specificity was lower apparently. The positive likelihood ratio was 3.0, 95% CI (2.4-3.8), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.22, 95% CI (0.16-0.31), diagnostic odds ratio was 14, 95% CI (7.84-17.42).

CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that CZT-MPI had satisfactory sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing coronary artery disease. Larger studies are required for further evaluation.

References

  1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Sep;58(9):882-93 - PubMed
  2. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1525-37 - PubMed
  3. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014 Aug;21(4):695-702 - PubMed
  4. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Jul;10(7):787-794 - PubMed
  5. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011 Oct;18(5):847-57 - PubMed
  6. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019 Aug;26(4):1269-1279 - PubMed
  7. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002 Jul 03;2:9 - PubMed
  8. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011 Aug;18(4):595-604 - PubMed
  9. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Aug;37(9):1710-21 - PubMed
  10. Stat Med. 2002 May 15;21(9):1237-56 - PubMed
  11. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009 Nov-Dec;16(6):927-34 - PubMed
  12. Ann Nucl Med. 2017 Oct;31(8):629-635 - PubMed
  13. Circ J. 2015;79(3):623-31 - PubMed
  14. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013 Oct;20(5):763-73 - PubMed
  15. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar;15(3):275-83 - PubMed
  16. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Sep 18;40(6):1192-5 - PubMed
  17. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016 Feb;23(1):11-20 - PubMed
  18. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36 - PubMed
  19. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Feb;40(3):331-40 - PubMed
  20. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Mar;61(1):102-107 - PubMed
  21. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017 Oct 15;2017:4945680 - PubMed
  22. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Mar;2(3):273-82 - PubMed
  23. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1 - PubMed
  24. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jul;45(7):1079-1090 - PubMed
  25. NCHS Data Brief. 2013 Mar;(115):1-8 - PubMed
  26. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014 Apr;21(2):305-18 - PubMed
  27. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015 Apr;22(2):266-75 - PubMed
  28. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014 Jun;21(3):478-85 - PubMed
  29. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 May;41(5):956-62 - PubMed
  30. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 Jul;14(4):555-65 - PubMed
  31. J Nucl Med. 2010 Jan;51(1):46-51 - PubMed
  32. Int J Cardiol. 2014 Jun 15;174(2):313-7 - PubMed
  33. Circ J. 2014;78(5):1169-75 - PubMed
  34. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 31;10(7):e0134485 - PubMed
  35. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Nov;38(11):2025-30 - PubMed
  36. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Jun;42(7):1004-11 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types