Coronary Evaluation Before Heart Valvular Surgery by Using Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography Versus Invasive Coronary Angiography

Abstract

Background Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a noninvasive, less expensive, low‐radiation alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA). ICA is recommended for coronary evaluation before heart valvular surgery, and the supporting evidence for CCTA is insufficient. Our study is a single‐center, prospective cohort study designed to evaluate the feasibility of CCTA instead of ICA in detection of coronary artery disease before surgery. Methods and Results Heart valvular surgery candidates were consecutively enrolled between April 2017 and December 2018. Nine hundred fifty‐eight patients in the CCTA group underwent CCTA primarily, and those with ≥50% coronary stenosis or uncertain diagnosis underwent subsequent ICA. One thousand five hundred twenty‐five patients in the ICA group underwent ICA directly before surgery. Coronary artery bypass grafting decision was made by surgeons according to CCTA or ICA results. Most of the patients (78.8%) in the CCTA group avoided invasive angiography. Thirty‐day mortality (0.7% versus 0.9%, P =0.821), myocardial infarction (6.4% versus 6.9%, P =0.680 ), and low cardiac output syndrome (4.2% versus 2.8%, P =0.085) were similar in the CCTA and ICA groups. Median duration of follow‐up was 19.3 months (interquartile range, 14.2–30.0 months), cumulative rates of mortality (2.6% versus 2.6%, P =0.882) and major adverse cardiac events (9.6% versus 9.0%, P =0.607) showed no difference between the 2 groups. Coronary evaluation expense was lower in the CCTA group ($149.6 versus $636.0, P <0.001). Conclusions The strategy of using CCTA as a doorkeeper in coronary evaluation before heart valvular surgery showed noninferiority in identification of candidates for coronary artery bypass grafting and postoperative safety.