Dataset Information

Noninvasive Cardiac Testing vs Clinical Evaluation Alone in Acute Chest Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the ROMICAT-II Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The 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.

Objective

To 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 participants

This 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.

Interventions

Clinical evaluation plus noninvasive testing (CCTA or stress test) vs clinical evaluation alone.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary 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.

Results

Of 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 relevance

In 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 registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01084239.

SUBMITTER: Reinhardt SW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5838790 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines recommend noninvasive testing for patients with stable chest pain, although many subsequently have normal test results and no adverse clinical events.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) vs functional testing.Main outcomes and measuresA 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceIn 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 registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01174550.

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:ImportanceNoninvasive testing and coronary angiography are used to evaluate patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain, but their effects on outcomes are uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine whether cardiovascular testing-noninvasive imaging or coronary angiography-is associated with changes in the rates of coronary revascularization or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admission in patients who present to the ED with chest pain without initial findings of ischemia.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort analysis used weekday (Monday-Thursday) vs weekend (Friday-Sunday) presentation as an instrument to adjust for unobserved case-mix variation (selection bias) between 2011 and 2012. National claims data (Truven MarketScan) was used. The data included a total of 926 633 privately insured patients ages 18 to 64 years who presented to the ED with chest pain without initial diagnosis consistent with acute ischemia.ExposuresNoninvasive testing or coronary angiography within 2 days or 30 days of presentation.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end points were coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) and AMI admission at 7, 30, 180, and 365 days. The secondary end points were coronary angiography and coronary artery bypass grafting in those who underwent angiography.ResultsThe patients were ages 18 to 64 years with an average age of 44.4 years. A total of 536 197 patients (57.9%) were women. Patients who received testing (224 973) had increased risk at baseline and had greater risk of AMI admission than those who did not receive testing (701 660) (0.35% vs 0.14% at 30 days). Weekday patients (571 988) had similar baseline comorbidities to weekend patients (354 645) but were more likely to receive testing. After risk factor adjustment, testing within 30 days was associated with a significant increase in coronary angiography (36.5 per 1000 patients tested; 95% CI, 21.0-52.0) and revascularization (22.8 per 1000 patients tested; 95% CI, 10.6-35.0) at 1 year but no significant change in AMI admissions (7.8 per 1000 patients tested; 95% CI, -1.4 to 17.0). Testing within 2 days was also associated with a significant increase in coronary revascularization but no difference in AMI admissions.Conclusions and relevanceCardiac testing in patients with chest pain was associated with increased downstream testing and treatment without a reduction in AMI admissions, suggesting that routine testing may not be warranted. Further research into whether specific high-risk subgroups benefit from testing is needed.

Project description:ImportanceBoth noninvasive anatomic and functional testing strategies are now routinely used as initial workup in patients with low-risk stable chest pain (SCP).ObjectiveTo determine whether anatomic approaches (ie, coronary computed tomography angiography [CTA] and coronary CTA supplemented with noninvasive fractional flow reserve [FFRCT], performed in patients with 30% to 69% stenosis) are cost-effective compared with functional testing for the assessment of low-risk SCP.Design, setting, and participantsThis cost-effectiveness analysis used an individual-based Markov microsimulation model for low-risk SCP. The model was developed using patient data from the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial. The model was validated by comparing model outcomes with outcomes observed in the PROMISE trial for anatomic (coronary CTA) and functional (stress testing) strategies, including diagnostic test results, referral to invasive coronary angiography (ICA), coronary revascularization, incident major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and costs during 60 days and 2 years. The validated model was used to determine whether anatomic approaches are cost-effective over a lifetime compared with functional testing.ExposureChoice of index test for evaluation of low-risk SCP.Main outcomes and measuresDownstream ICA and coronary revascularization, MACE (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction), cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of competing strategies.ResultsThe model cohort included 10 003 individual patients (median [interquartile range] age, 60.0 [54.4-65.9] years; 5270 [52.7%] women; 7693 [77.4%] White individuals), who entered the model 100 times. The Markov model accurately estimated the test assignment, results of anatomic and functional index testing, referral to ICA, revascularization, MACE, and costs at 60 days and 2 years compared with observed data in PROMISE (eg, coronary CTA: ICA, 12.2% [95% CI, 10.9%-13.5%] vs 12.3% [95% CI, 12.2%-12.4%]; revascularization, 6.2% [95% CI, 5.5%-6.9%] vs 6.4% [95% CI, 6.3%-6.5%]; functional strategy: ICA, 8.1% [95% CI, 7.4%-8.9%] vs 8.2% [95% CI, 8.1%-8.3%]; revascularization, 3.2% [95% CI, 2.7%-3.7%] vs 3.3% [95% CI, 3.2%-3.4%]; 2-year MACE rates: coronary CTA, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%] vs 2.3% [95% CI, 2.2%-2.4%]; functional strategy, 2.2% [95% CI, 1.8%-2.6%] vs 2.4% [95% CI, 2.3%-2.4%]). Anatomic approaches led to higher ICA and revascularization rates at 60 days, 2 years, and 5 years compared with functional testing but were more effective in patient selection for ICA (eg, 60-day revascularization-to-ICA ratio, CTA: 53.7% [95% CI, 53.3%-54.0%]; CTA with FFRCT: 59.5% [95% CI, 59.2%-59.8%]; functional testing: 40.7% [95% CI, 40.4%-50.0%]). Over a lifetime, anatomic approaches gained an additional 6 months in perfect health compared with functional testing (CTA, 25.16 [95% CI, 25.14-25.19] QALYs; CTA with FFRCT, 25.14 [95% CI, 25.12-25.17] QALYs; functional testing, 24.68 [95% CI, 24.66-24.70] QALYs). Anatomic strategies were less costly and more effective; thus, CTA with FFRCT dominated and CTA alone was cost-effective (ICERs ranged from $1912/QALY for women and $3,559/QALY for men) compared with functional testing. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, anatomic approaches were cost-effective in more than 65% of scenarios, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study suggest that anatomic strategies may present a more favorable initial diagnostic option in the evaluation of low-risk SCP compared with functional testing.

Project description:AimsCoronary artery disease is frequently diagnosed following evaluation of stable chest pain with anatomical or functional testing. A more granular understanding of patient phenotypes that benefit from either strategy may enable personalized testing.Methods and resultsUsing participant-level data from 9572 patients undergoing anatomical (n = 4734) vs. functional (n = 4838) testing in the PROMISE (PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial, we created a topological representation of the study population based on 57 pre-randomization variables. Within each patient's 5% topological neighbourhood, Cox regression models provided individual patient-centred hazard ratios for major adverse cardiovascular events and revealed marked heterogeneity across the phenomap [median 1.11 (10th to 90th percentile: 0.52-2.61]), suggestive of distinct phenotypic neighbourhoods favouring anatomical or functional testing. Based on this risk phenomap, we employed an extreme gradient boosting algorithm in 80% of the PROMISE population to predict the personalized benefit of anatomical vs. functional testing using 12 model-derived, routinely collected variables and created a decision support tool named ASSIST (Anatomical vs. Stress teSting decIsion Support Tool). In both the remaining 20% of PROMISE and an external validation set consisting of patients from SCOT-HEART (Scottish COmputed Tomography of the HEART Trial) undergoing anatomical-first vs. functional-first assessment, the testing strategy recommended by ASSIST was associated with a significantly lower incidence of each study's primary endpoint (P = 0.0024 and P = 0.0321 for interaction, respectively), as well as a harmonized endpoint of all-cause mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction (P = 0.0309 and P < 0.0001 for interaction, respectively).ConclusionWe propose a novel phenomapping-derived decision support tool to standardize the selection of anatomical vs. functional testing in the evaluation of stable chest pain, validated in two large and geographically diverse clinical trial populations.