Dataset Information

Identification of Patients With Stable Chest Pain Deriving Minimal Value From Noninvasive Testing: The PROMISE Minimal-Risk Tool, A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Guidelines recommend noninvasive testing for patients with stable chest pain, although many subsequently have normal test results and no adverse clinical events.

Objective

To describe a risk tool developed to use only pretest clinical data to identify patients with chest pain with normal coronary arteries and no clinical events during follow-up (minimal-risk cohort).

Design, setting, and participants

This secondary analysis of a randomized, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain [PROMISE]) includes stable, symptomatic outpatients without known coronary artery disease referred for noninvasive testing at 193 sites in North America.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) vs functional testing.

Main outcomes and measures

A low-risk tool was developed and internally validated from July 27, 2010, to September 19, 2013, in 4631 patients receiving CCTA as their initial test, with a median follow-up of 25 months. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate pretest variables to determine factors associated with minimal risk using a two-thirds random sample for model derivation (n = 3087) and a one-third sample for testing and validation (n = 1544). The model was then applied to the CCTA and functional testing arms, and test results and event rates were ascertained.

Results

A total of 1243 of 4631 patients (26.8%) were in the minimal-risk cohort. The final minimal-risk model included 10 clinical variables that together were correlated with normal CCTA results and no clinical events (C statistic = 0.725 for the derivation and validation subsets; 95% CI, 0.705-0.746): younger age; female sex; racial or ethnic minority; no history of hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidemia; family history of premature coronary artery disease; never smoking; symptoms unrelated to physical or mental stress; and higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. Across the entire PROMISE cohort, this model was associated with the lowest rates of severely abnormal test results (1.3% for CCTA; 5.6% for functional) and cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (0.5% for a median of 25 months) among patients at the highest probability (10th decile) of minimal risk.

Conclusions and relevance

In contemporary practice, more than 25% of patients with stable chest pain referred for noninvasive testing will have normal coronary arteries and no long-term clinical events. A clinical tool using readily available pretest variables discriminates such minimal-risk patients, for whom deferred testing may be considered.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01174550.

SUBMITTER: Fordyce CB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5470411 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Optimal management of patients with stable chest pain relies on the prognostic information provided by noninvasive cardiovascular testing, but there are limited data from randomized trials comparing anatomic with functional testing. METHODS:In the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain), patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) were randomly assigned to functional testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress, or stress echocardiography) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). Site-based diagnostic test reports were classified as normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal. The primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalizations over a median follow-up of 26.1 months. RESULTS:Both the prevalence of normal test results and incidence rate of events in these patients were significantly lower among 4500 patients randomly assigned to CTA in comparison with 4602 patients randomly assigned to functional testing (33.4% versus 78.0%, and 0.9% versus 2.1%, respectively; both P<0.001). In CTA, 54.0% of events (n=74/137) occurred in patients with nonobstructive CAD (1%-69% stenosis). Prevalence of obstructive CAD and myocardial ischemia was low (11.9% versus 12.7%, respectively), with both findings having similar prognostic value (hazard ratio, 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.60-5.39; and 3.47; 95% CI, 2.42-4.99). When test findings were stratified as mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal, hazard ratios for events in comparison with normal tests increased proportionally for CTA (2.94, 7.67, 10.13; all P<0.001) but not for corresponding functional testing categories (0.94 [P=0.87], 2.65 [P=0.001], 3.88 [P<0.001]). The discriminatory ability of CTA in predicting events was significantly better than functional testing (c-index, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68-0.76 versus 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.69; P=0.04). If 2714 patients with at least an intermediate Framingham Risk Score (>10%) who had a normal functional test were reclassified as being mildly abnormal, the discriminatory capacity improved to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.74). CONCLUSIONS:Coronary CTA, by identifying patients at risk because of nonobstructive CAD, provides better prognostic information than functional testing in contemporary patients who have stable chest pain with a low burden of obstructive CAD, myocardial ischemia, and events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Project description:The aim of this study was to determine whether presentation, risk assessment, testing choices, and results differ by sex in stable symptomatic outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD).Although established CAD presentations differ by sex, little is known about stable, suspected CAD.The characteristics of 10,003 men and women in the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial were compared using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Sex differences in test selection and predictors of test positivity were examined using logistic regression.Women were older (62.4 years of age vs. 59.0 years of age) and were more likely to be hypertensive (66.6% vs. 63.2%), dyslipidemic (68.9% vs. 66.3%), and to have a family history of premature CAD (34.6% vs. 29.3) (all p values <0.005). Women were less likely to smoke (45.6% vs. 57.0%; p < 0.001), although their prevalence of diabetes was similar to that in men (21.8% vs. 21.0%; p = 0.30). Chest pain was the primary symptom in 73.2% of women versus 72.3% of men (p = 0.30), and was characterized as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness” in 52.5% of women versus 46.2% of men (p < 0.001). Compared with men, all risk scores characterized women as being at lower risk, and providers were more likely to characterize women as having a low (<30%) pre-test probability of CAD (40.7% vs. 34.1%; p < 0.001). Compared with men, women were more often referred to imaging tests (adjusted odds ratio: 1.21; 95% confidence interval: 1.01 to 1.44) than nonimaging tests. Women were less likely to have a positive test (9.7% vs. 15.1%; p < 0.001). Although univariate predictors of test positivity were similar, in multivariable models, age, body mass index, and Framingham risk score were predictive of a positive test in women, whereas Framingham and Diamond and Forrester risk scores were predictive in men.Patient sex influences the entire diagnostic pathway for possible CAD, from baseline risk factors and presentation to noninvasive test outcomes. These differences highlight the need for sex-specific approaches for the evaluation of CAD.

Project description:ImportanceThe incremental benefit of noninvasive testing in addition to clinical evaluation (history, physical examination, an electrocardiogram [ECG], and biomarker assessment) vs clinical evaluation alone for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute chest pain is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine differences in outcomes with clinical evaluation and noninvasive testing (coronary computed tomographic angiography [CCTA] or stress testing) vs clinical evaluation alone.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was a retrospective analysis of data from the randomized multicenter Rule Out Myocardial Ischemia/Infarction by Computer Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT-II) trial. Data for 1000 patients who presented with chest pain to the EDs at 9 hospitals in the United States were evaluated.InterventionsClinical evaluation plus noninvasive testing (CCTA or stress test) vs clinical evaluation alone.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included hospital admission, direct ED discharge, downstream testing, rates of invasive coronary angiography, revascularization, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), repeated ED visit or hospitalization for recurrent chest pain at 28 days, and cost. Safety end points were missed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and cumulative radiation exposure during the index visit and follow-up period.ResultsOf the 1000 patients randomized, 118 patients (12%) (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [7.8]; 49 [42%] were female) did not undergo noninvasive testing, whereas 882 (88%) (mean [SD] age, 54.4 [8.14] years; 419 [48%] were female) received CCTA or stress testing. There was no difference in baseline characteristics or clinical presentation between groups. Patients who underwent clinical evaluation alone experienced a shorter LOS (20.3 vs 27.9 hours; P < .001), lower rates of diagnostic testing (P < .001) and angiography (2% vs 11%; P < .001), lower median costs ($2261.50 vs $2584.30; P = .009), and less cumulative radiation exposure (0 vs 9.9 mSv; P < .001) during the 28-day study period. Lack of testing was associated with a lower rate of diagnosis of ACS (0% vs 9%; P < .001) and less coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the index visit (0% vs 10%; P < .001, and 0% vs 4%; P = .02, respectively). There was no difference in rates of PCI (2% vs 5%; P = .15), coronary artery bypass surgery (0% vs 1%; P = .61), return ED visits (5.8% vs 2.8%; P = .08), or MACE (2% vs 1%; P = .24) in the 28-day follow-up period.Conclusions and relevanceIn patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain, negative biomarkers, and a nonischemic ECG result, noninvasive testing with CCTA or stress testing leads to longer LOS, more downstream testing, more radiation exposure, and greater cost without an improvement in clinical outcomes.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01084239.

Project description:Importance:Coronary computed tomographic angiography (coronary CTA) can characterize coronary artery disease, including high-risk plaque. A noninvasive method of identifying high-risk plaque before major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) could provide practice-changing optimizations in coronary artery disease care. Objective:To determine whether high-risk plaque detected by coronary CTA was associated with incident MACE independently of significant stenosis (SS) and cardiovascular risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants:This prespecified nested observational cohort study was part of the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial. All stable, symptomatic outpatients in this trial who required noninvasive cardiovascular testing and received coronary CTA were included and followed up for a median of 25 months. Exposures:Core laboratory assessment of coronary CTA for SS and high-risk plaque (eg, positive remodeling, low computed tomographic attenuation, or napkin-ring sign). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point was an adjudicated composite of MACE (defined as death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina). Results:The study included 4415 patients, of whom 2296 (52%) were women, with a mean age of 60.5 years, a median atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score of 11, and a MACE rate of 3% (131 events). A total of 676 patients (15.3%) had high-risk plaques, and 276 (6.3%) had SS. The presence of high-risk plaque was associated with a higher MACE rate (6.4% vs 2.4%; hazard ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.89-3.93). This association persisted after adjustment for ASCVD risk score and SS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.13-2.62). Adding high-risk plaque to the ASCVD risk score and SS assessment led to a significant continuous net reclassification improvement (0.34; 95% CI, 0.02-0.51). Presence of high-risk plaque increased MACE risk among patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease relative to patients without high-risk plaque (aHR, 4.31 vs 2.64; 95% CI, 2.25-8.26 vs 1.49-4.69). There were no significant differences in MACE in patients with SS and high-risk plaque as opposed to those with SS but not high-risk plaque (aHR, 8.68 vs. 9.31; 95% CI, 4.25-17.73 vs 4.21-20.61). High-risk plaque was a stronger predictor of MACE in women (aHR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.25-4.64) vs men (aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.81-2.39) and younger patients (aHR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.20-4.51) vs older ones (aHR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.77-2.39). Conclusions and Relevance:High-risk plaque found by coronary CTA was associated with a future MACE in a large US population of outpatients with stable chest pain. High-risk plaque may be an additional risk stratification tool, especially in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease, younger patients, and women. The importance of findings is limited by low absolute MACE rates and low positive predictive value of high-risk plaque. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Indentifier: NCT01174550.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is an established predictor of future major adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in asymptomatic individuals. However, limited data exist as to how CAC compares with functional testing (FT) in estimating prognosis in symptomatic patients. METHODS:In the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain), patients with stable chest pain (or dyspnea) and intermediate pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease were randomized to FT (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress, or stress echocardiography) or anatomic testing. We evaluated those who underwent CAC testing as part of the anatomic evaluation (n=4209) and compared that with results of FT (n=4602). We stratified CAC and FT results as normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal (for CAC: 0, 1-99 Agatston score [AS], 100-400 AS, and >400 AS, respectively; for FT: normal, mild=late positive treadmill, moderate=early positive treadmill or single-vessel ischemia, and severe=large ischemic region abnormality). The primary end point was all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalization over a median follow-up of 26.1 months. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and C statistics to determine predictive and discriminatory values. RESULTS:Overall, the distribution of normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal test results was significantly different between FT and CAC (FT: normal, n=3588 [78.0%]; mild, n=432 [9.4%]; moderate, n=217 [4.7%]; severe, n=365 [7.9%]; CAC: normal, n=1457 [34.6%]; mild, n=1340 [31.8%]; moderate, n=772 [18.3%]; severe, n=640 [15.2%]; P<0.0001). Moderate and severe abnormalities in both arms robustly predicted events (moderate: CAC: HR, 3.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-5.44; and FT: HR, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.83; severe: CAC: HR, 3.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-6.36; and FT: HR, 3.88; 95% confidence interval, 2.58-5.85). In the CAC arm, the majority of events (n=112 of 133, 84%) occurred in patients with any positive CAC test (score >0), whereas fewer than half of events occurred in patients with mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal FT (n=57 of 132, 43%; P<0.001). In contrast, any abnormality on FT was significantly more specific for predicting events (78.6% for FT versus 35.2% for CAC; P<0.001). Overall discriminatory ability in predicting the primary end point of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unstable angina hospitalization was similar and fair for both CAC and FT (C statistic, 0.67 versus 0.64). Coronary computed tomographic angiography provided significantly better prognostic information compared with FT and CAC testing (C index, 0.72). CONCLUSIONS:Among stable outpatients presenting with suspected coronary artery disease, most patients experiencing clinical events have measurable CAC at baseline, and fewer than half have any abnormalities on FT. However, an abnormal FT was more specific for cardiovascular events, leading to overall similarly modest discriminatory abilities of both tests. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01174550.