# Comparison of cardiac computed tomography recommendations in recent ESC vs. ACC/AHA guidelines

## TL;DR

This paper compares the recommendations for cardiac computed tomography in the latest European and American heart guidelines to find areas of agreement and difference.

## Contribution

The study provides a detailed comparison of the class and evidence levels of CCT recommendations between ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines.

## Key findings

- ACC/AHA guidelines had more Class IIa recommendations compared to ESC guidelines.
- Both guidelines had similar proportions of Class I and IIb recommendations.
- ACC/AHA included more recommendations with higher class and evidence levels than ESC.

## Abstract

Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) continues to expand with increasing applications and technological advancements. Growing evidence on the clinical utility of CCT necessitates evaluating how this knowledge is incorporated into European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines. We aimed to provide a comprehensive comparison of CCT indications between ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines to identify areas of consensus and divergence in the current landscape of CCT utilization. ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines were systematically reviewed for CCT recommendations. The class of recommendation (COR) and level of evidence (LOE) were compared using χ2 or Fisher exact tests. The latest ESC guidelines included 40 recommendations regarding CCT: 18 (45%) COR-I, 14 (35%) COR-IIa, 6 (15%) COR-IIb, and 2 (5%) COR-III. Two (5%) recommendation had LOE-A, 20 (50%) had LOE-B, and 18 (45%) had LOE-C. The latest ACC/AHA guidelines consisted of 54 recommendations: 18 (33.3%) COR-I, 28 (51.9%) COR-IIa, 6 (11.1%) COR-IIb, and 2 (3.7%) COR-III. Two recommendations were assigned LOE-A (3.7%), 30 (55.6%) were classified as LOE-B, and 22 (40.7%) as LOE-C. ACC/AHA guidelines had a significantly higher proportion of COR-IIa recommendations (P = 0.04) and similar proportions of COR-I and COR-IIb recommendations (P = 0.28; P = 0.76), compared to ESC guidelines. The proportion of LOE-B and LOE-C recommendations weren’t statistically different (P = 0.54; P = 0.84). ACC/AHA guidelines included more CCT recommendations with a higher COR and LOE than ESC guidelines. These findings highlight the need for continued research and consensus-building to establish standardized, evidence-based CCT recommendations in clinical practice.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10554-025-03375-0.