Dataset Information

Clinical and Economic Implications of Inconclusive Noninvasive Test Results in Stable Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the PROMISE Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Inconclusive noninvasive tests complicate the care of patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but their prevalence and impact on management, outcomes, and costs are not well described.

Methods

PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) patients were randomized to stress testing (n=4533) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA; n=4677). We assessed relationships between inconclusive results, subsequent testing, a composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina), and healthcare expenditures.

Results

Overall, 8.0% of tests were inconclusive (9.7% stress, 6.4% CTA). Compared with negative tests, inconclusive tests were more often referred to a second noninvasive test (stress: 14.6% versus 8.5%, odds ratio [OR], 1.91; CTA: 36.5% versus 8.4%, OR, 5.95; P<0.001) and catheterization (stress: 5.5% versus 2.4%, OR, 2.36; CTA: 23.4% versus 4.1%, OR, 6.49; P<0.001), and composite outcomes were higher for both inconclusive tests (stress: 3.7% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 1.81, P=0.034; CTA: 5.0% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 1.85; P=0.044) and positive tests (stress: 8.3% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 3.50; CTA: 9.2% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 3.66; P<0.001). Twenty-four-month costs were higher for inconclusive tests than negative tests by $2905 (stress) and $4030 (CTA).

Conclusions

Among patients with stable chest pain undergoing a noninvasive test, inconclusive results occurred in 6% of CTA and 10% of stress tests. Compared with those with conclusive negative tests, individuals with inconclusive results more often underwent subsequent testing, had increased medical costs, and experienced worse outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

SUBMITTER: Goyal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7153546 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundPatients evaluated for coronary artery disease have a range of symptoms and underlying risk. The relationships between patient-described symptoms, clinician conclusions, and subsequent clinical management and outcomes remain incompletely described.MethodsIn this secondary analysis, we examined the association between 4 types of presenting symptoms (substernal/left-sided chest pain, other chest/neck/arm pain, dyspnea, and other symptoms) and patient risk, noninvasive test results, clinical management, and outcomes for stable outpatients randomized in the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate differences in noninvasive test result, all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina hospitalization and cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction by symptom type.ResultsAmong 9996 patients, most presented with chest pain (47.2% substernal, 29.2% other), followed by dyspnea (14.9%), and other symptoms (8.7%). Patients with dyspnea were older (median age 63 versus 60, P≤0.02) with higher baseline risk (78.2% with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease >7.5% versus 67.6%, P≤0.02). Using patients with substernal chest pain as a reference, there was no difference in noninvasive test positivity across symptom groups (all P>0.05), but test-positive patients with dyspnea (adjusted odds ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]) or other symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.47-0.90]) were less likely to be referred for cardiac catheterization. While symptom type alone was not associated with outcomes, symptom presentation with chest pain or dyspnea did modify the association between a positive noninvasive test and clinical outcome (interaction P=0.025 for both all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina hospitalization and cardiovascular death/MI).ConclusionsAmong low-risk outpatients evaluated for coronary artery disease, typicality of symptoms was not closely associated with higher baseline risk but was related to differences in processes of care and the prognostic value of a positive test. Adverse events were not associated with clinician risk estimates or symptoms alone. These unexpected findings highlight the limitation of relying solely on symptom presentation or clinician risk estimation to evaluate patients for suspected coronary artery disease.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is suggested that the integration of maximal myocardial blood flow (MBF) and coronary flow reserve (CFR), termed coronary flow capacity, allows for comprehensive evaluation of patients with known or suspected stable coronary artery disease. Because management decisions are predicated on clinical risk, we sought to determine the independent and integrated value of maximal MBF and CFR for predicting cardiovascular death. METHODS:MBF and CFR were quantified in 4029 consecutive patients (median age 66 years, 50.5% women) referred for rest/stress myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography scans from January 2006 to December 2013. The primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Maximal MBF <1.8 mL·g-1·min-1 and CFR<2 were considered impaired. Four patient groups were identified based on the concordant or discordant impairment of maximal MBF or CFR. Association of maximal MBF and CFR with cardiovascular death was assessed using Cox and Poisson regression analyses. RESULTS:A total of 392 (9.7%) cardiovascular deaths occurred over a median follow-up of 5.6 years. CFR was a stronger predictor of cardiovascular mortality than maximal MBF beyond traditional cardiovascular risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial scar and ischemia, rate-pressure product, type of radiotracer or stress agent used, and revascularization after scan (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-2.31; P<0.001 per unit decrease in CFR after adjustment for maximal MBF and clinical covariates; and adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.84-1.27; P=0.8 per unit decrease in maximal MBF after adjustment for CFR and clinical covariates). In univariable analyses, patients with concordant impairment of CFR and maximal MBF had high cardiovascular mortality of 3.3% (95% CI, 2.9-3.7) per year. Patients with impaired CFR but preserved maximal MBF had an intermediate cardiovascular mortality of 1.7% (95% CI, 1.3-2.1) per year. These patients were predominantly women (70%). Patients with preserved CFR but impaired maximal MBF had low cardiovascular mortality of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.6-1.6) per year. Patients with concordantly preserved CFR and maximal MBF had the lowest cardiovascular mortality of 0.4% (95 CI, 0.3-0.6) per year. In multivariable analysis, the cardiovascular mortality risk gradient across the 4 concordant or discordant categories was independently driven by impaired CFR irrespective of impairment in maximal MBF. CONCLUSIONS:CFR is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular mortality than maximal MBF. Concordant and discordant categories based on integrating CFR and maximal MBF identify unique prognostic phenotypes of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.