Table 3.
Results of the screening procedures for the different studies included in the meta-analysis
| Faglia et al. (2005) | DIAD (2009) | DYNAMIT (2011) | FACTOR-64 (2014) | DADDY-D (2015) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients in the screening arm | 71 | 561 | 316 | 452 | 262 |
| Patients with positive screening, n (%) | 15 (21 %) | 83 (15 %) | – | 76 (17 %)a | 20 (8 %) |
| Patients with abnormalb screening, n (%) | 15 (21 %) | 113 (20 %) | 68 (22 %) | 76 (17 %) | 20 (8 %) |
| Coronary angiography related to abnormal screening, n (%) | 14 (20 %) | 25 (4 %) | 38 (12 %) | 36 (8 %) | 17 (6 %) |
| Proportion of patients with abnormal screening who underwent coronary angiography | 14/15 = 93 % | 25/113 = 22 % | 38/68 = 56 % | 36/76 = 47 % | 17/20 = 85 % |
| Patients with significant CAD on coronary angiography performed subsequently to the initial screening, n (%) | 9 (13 %) | 9 (2 %) | – | – | 12 (5 %) |
| Proportion of patients with coronary angiography who had significant CAD | 9/14 = 64 % | 9/25 = 36 % | – | – | 12/17 = 71 % |
amoderate to severe coronary stenosis by CCTA
babnormal screening included patients with positive screening and patients with non-perfusion abnormality (ischemic ECG changes, transient left ventricle dilation, or baseline left ventricle dysfunction) in the DIAD study; patients with positive screening and SPECT results showing small defects (uncertain results) in the DYNAMIT study