Role of exercise cardiogoniometry in coronary artery disease diagnostics

Abstract

If CGM is to be established as a viable diagnostic method in daily clinical practice, it must undergo further development.

Value of Cardiogoniometry in Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Suspected Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

“…The positive predictive value (29% to 88%) and negative predictive value (58% to 89%) were reported in only 5 articles. 14,16,17,19,20) CGM accuracy was also reported in 5 papers 13,15,[17][18][19] with the highest value of 86% 15) and the lowest value of 64%. 13) (Table I) Quality assessment: The studies in the current metaanalysis were not of the same quality.…”

“…The highest reported sensitivity for CGM in CAD was 84% 17,33) and the highest specificity was 90%. 15,33) Also, the lowest reported sensitivity and specificity were 39% 20) and 60%, 18) respectively. The positive predictive value (29% to 88%) and negative predictive value (58% to 89%) were reported in only 5 articles.…”

“…Study characteristics: This study was performed on 2461 patients (1330 CAD, 1131 non-CAD) with a mean age of 63.1 ± 2.8 years. Main coronary artery stenosis over 50% was considered as significant stenosis in the majority of studies, and stenosis over 70% 12,17) and 75% 20) was defined as significant stenosis in 3 others. Only Seeck, et al 15) reported no definition of coronary artery stenosis based on angiography.…”

“…The first article was published in 1983, 12) and the latest published articles were published in 2017. 19,20) (Table I) Moreover, the methods of CAD diagnosis based on CGM were also different among the studies and included automated interpretation, [17][18][19][20] diagnostic score, 14) deviation from mean normal values, 12,13) and other specified methods. 15,16) Results of individual studies: The sensitivity and specificity were reported in all studies.…”

“…12) Following this study, more than 10 other studies have examined the value of CGM in CAD diagnosis in patients with stable angina and candidates for elective angiography, with their findings showing sensitivity of between 39% to 84% and specificity between 60% and 90%. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Due to the diversity of studies conducted in this area and the lack of a relevant review article, there is still not a good overview of the position of CGM in diagnosing CAD in patients with SIHD manifestations. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to investigate the value of CGM in diagnosing CAD patients with suspected SIHD based on angiography findings.…”