Journal of

---

Background: The aim of this study is to explore the safety and diagnostic performance of dual-source CT scan in comparison with single source CT scan and conventional angiography in patients with coronary heart diseases.
Materials and methods: A systematic review was performed using CRD standard methods. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE، Google Scholar and TRIP were searched up to April 2009. The references of the marked studies and gray literature were also searched.

Results: 17 articles were included. 9 articles reported the safety and 12 articles reported the diagnostic performance of DSCT.  Generally DSCT was a non-invasive and safe procedure.  Using DSCT the exposure of patient to X-ray was less than 64-slice single source CT (SSCT) and more than conventional angiography. For the DSCT the mean sensitivity was 90.4%, mean specificity was 82%, mean PPV was 83% and mean NPV was 96%. For the SSCT the mean sensitivity was 90.4%, mean specificity was 82%, mean PPV was 83% and mean NPV was 96%. The mean sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of DSCT were slightly higher than SSCT.

Conclusion: DSCT is a noninvasive and relatively safe technology. The diagnostic performance of DSCT is higher than SSCT, but its performance is not so much high to be able to substitute the conventional invasive angiography which is still the gold standard test.

---

Background: Intravascular imaging is a tool to detect coronary artery atherosclerosis which plays the major role in vessel stenosis degree determination and plaque pathology as a supplement of invasive angiography. This study aimed at comparing Intravascular imaging with invasive angiography.

Materials and Methods: For retrieving second type studies, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Centre for Review and Dissemination (CRD) were searched up to September 2013.  Searching was carried out by two persons using angiography and intravascular imaging keywords. Studies which compared intravascular ultrasound technology with invasive angiography were analyzed.

Results: Based on studies which reported the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) after one year of follow-up, there was a statistically significant difference between intravascular ultrasound and invasive angiography alone. It seems that TLR rate was lower with intravascular ultrasound (P = 0.02).In terms of cost effectiveness, approximately 54, 000 USD spend per each QALY using IVUS method.

Conclusion: Although, intravascular ultrasound could be able to detect coronary arteries damages and help out physician in selecting the most appropriate treatment, but due to the high cost of an intravascular ultrasound catheter, the invasive angiography is choice of physicians and patients in coronary intervention.