Dataset Information

Patient acceptance of noninvasive and invasive coronary angiography.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Noninvasive angiography using multislice computed tomography (MSCT) is superior to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection of coronary stenoses. We compared patient acceptance of these two noninvasive diagnostic tests and invasive conventional coronary angiography (Angio).

Methods and findings

A total of 111 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease underwent MSCT, MRI, and Angio. Subsequently, patient acceptance of the three tests was evaluated with questionnaires in all patients. The main acceptance variables were preparation and information prior to the test, degree of concern, comfort, degree of helplessness, pain (on visual analog scales), willingness to undergo the test again, and overall satisfaction. Preparation for each test was not rated significantly differently, whereas patients were significantly more concerned about Angio than the two noninvasive tests (p<0.001). No pain during MSCT, MRI, and Angio as assessed on visual analog scales (0 to 100) was reported by 99, 93, and 31 patients, respectively. Among the 82 patients who felt pain during at least one procedure, both CT (0.9+/-4.5) and MRI (5.2+/-16.6) were significantly less painful than Angio (24.6+/-23.4, both p<0.001). MSCT was considered significantly more comfortable (1.49+/-0.64) than MRI (1.75+/-0.81, p<0.001). In both the no-revascularization (55 patients) and the revascularization group (56 patients), the majority of the patients (73 and 71%) would prefer MSCT to MRI and Angio for future imaging of the coronary arteries. None of the patients indicated to be unwilling to undergo MSCT again. The major advantages patients attributed to MSCT were its fast, uncomplicated, noninvasive, and painless nature.

Conclusions

Noninvasive coronary angiography with MSCT is considered more comfortable than MRI and both MSCT and MRI are less painful than Angio. Patient preference for MSCT might tip the scales in favor of this test provided that the diagnostic accuracy of MSCT can be shown to be high enough for clinical application.

SUBMITTER: Schonenberger E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1796945 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveBecause there is evidence for a clinical benefit of using coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography instead of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), we ascertained if patient satisfaction could represent an important barrier to implementation of coronary CT in clinical practice.Materials and methodsA total of 329 patients with suspected CAD and clinical indication for ICA were randomly assigned to undergo either CT or ICA for guiding treatment. Satisfaction for both groups was assessed by patient questionnaire completed twice, ≥24 h after CT or ICA, and at follow-up after a median of 3.7 years. Assessment included preparation, concern, comfort, helplessness, pain, willingness to undergo tests again, overall satisfaction, and preference. Pearson's chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used.ResultsOverall, 91% of patients undergoing CT (152/167) and 86% undergoing ICA completed assessment (140/162, p = 0.19). Patients reported being significantly better prepared for CT, less concerned about the test, and felt less helpless than during ICA (all: p < 0.001). Subjective pain (horizontal nonmarked visual analogue scale) was significantly lower for CT (6.9 ± 14.7) than for ICA (17.1 ± 22.7; p < 0.001). At follow-up, significantly more patients in the CT group reported very good satisfaction with communication of findings compared with the ICA group (p < 0.001) and 92% would recommend the institution to someone referred for the same examination.ConclusionsResults from our single-center randomized study show very good satisfaction with coronary CT compared to ICA. Thus, superior acceptance of CT should be considered in shared decision-making.Clinical relevance statementThis evaluation of patient satisfaction in a randomized study shows that patients' preference is in line with the clinical benefit provided by CT and also suggests to prefer a CT-first strategy in suspected coronary artery disease.Key points• Subjective pain was significantly lower for coronary CT angiography than for invasive coronary angiography and patients felt better prepared and less concerned about CT. • Patients were overall more satisfied with coronary CT angiography than invasive coronary angiography in a randomized controlled trial. • After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, more patients in the CT group indicated very good satisfaction with the communication of findings and with the examination itself.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the detection of relevant extracardiac findings (ECFs) on coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and evaluate the potential clinical benefit of their detection.MethodsThis is the prespecified subanalysis of ECFs in patients presenting with a clinical indication for ICA based on atypical angina and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) included in the prospective single-center randomized controlled Coronary Artery Disease Management (CAD-Man) study. ECFs requiring immediate therapy and/or further workup including additional imaging were defined as clinically relevant. We evaluated the scope of ECFs in 329 patients and analyzed the potential clinical benefit of their detection.ResultsECFs were detected in 107 of 329 patients (32.5%; CTA: 101/167, 60.5%; ICA: 6/162, 3.7%; p < .001). Fifty-nine patients had clinically relevant ECFs (17.9%; CTA: 55/167, 32.9%; ICA: 4/162, 2.5%; p < .001). In the CTA group, ECFs potentially explained atypical chest pain in 13 of 101 patients with ECFs (12.9%). After initiation of therapy, chest pain improved in 4 (4.0%) and resolved in 7 patients (6.9%). Follow-up imaging was recommended in 33 (10.0%; CTA: 30/167, 18.0%; ICA: 3/162, 1.9%) and additional clinic consultation in 26 patients (7.9%; CTA: 25/167, 15.0%; ICA: 1/162, 0.6%). Malignancy was newly diagnosed in one patient (0.3%; CTA: 1/167, 0.6%; ICA: 0).ConclusionsIn this randomized study, CTA but not ICA detected clinically relevant ECFs that may point to possible other causes of chest pain in patients without CAD. Thus, CTA might preclude the need for ICA in those patients.Trial registrationNCT Unique ID: 00844220 KEY POINTS: • CTA detects ten times more clinically relevant ECFs than ICA. • Actionable clinically relevant ECFs affect patient management and therapy and may thus improve chest pain. • Detection of ECFs explaining chest pain on CTA might preclude the need for performing ICA.

Project description:Objective:To obtain a real-world perspective of the optimal timing of angiography performed within 24 hours of admission with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Background:Current guidelines recommend angiography within 24 hours of hospitalisation with NSTEMI. The recent VERDICT trial found that angiography within 12 hours of admission with NSTEMI was associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes among high-risk patients. We compared the outcomes of real-world NSTEMI patients undergoing angiography within 12 hours of admission with those of patients undergoing angiography 12 to 24 hours after admission. Methods:NSTEMI patients without life-threatening features who received angiography within 24 hours of admission were obtained from the SPUM-ACS registry, a cohort of consecutive patients admitted with acute coronary syndromes to four university hospitals in Switzerland. Cox models assessed for an association between door-to-catheter time and one-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke). Results:Of 2672 NSTEMI patients, 1832 met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 1464 patients underwent angiography within 12 hours (12?h group) compared with 368 patients between 12 and 24 hours (12-24?h group). Multiple logistic regression identified out-of-hours admission as the only factor associated with delayed angiography. After 2?:?1 propensity score matching, 736 patients from the 12?h group and 368 patients from the 12-24?h group demonstrated no significant difference in rates of one-year MACE (7.7% vs. 7.3%, HR: 1.050, 95% CI 0.637-1.733, p=0.847). Stratification by GRACE score (>140 vs. ?140) found no significant reduction in MACE among high-risk patients in the 12?h group (p=0.847). Stratification by GRACE score (>140 vs. ?140) found no significant reduction in MACE among high-risk patients in the 12?h group (. Conclusions:In an unselected real-world cohort of NSTEMI patients, angiography within 12 hours of admission was not associated with improved one-year cardiovascular outcomes when compared with angiography 12 and 24 hours after admission, even among high-risk patients.