4.8 Article

Coronary CT Angiography versus Standard Evaluation in Acute Chest Pain

Journal

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 367, Issue 4, Pages 299-308

Publisher

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1201161

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [U01HL092040, U01HL092022]
  2. National Institutes of Health [UL1RR025758, K23HL098370, L30HL093896]
  3. GE Healthcare
  4. Astellas
  5. Harvard Clinical Research Institute
  6. American College of Radiology Imaging Network
  7. Bracco Diagnostics
  8. Genentech
  9. Siemens Healthcare
  10. Alere (Biosite)
  11. Brahms Diagnostica (Fischer)
  12. Nanosphere
  13. St. Jude Medical
  14. Qi Imaging
  15. Arena Pharmaceuticals
  16. AstraZeneca
  17. Bayer
  18. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  19. Ortho-McNeil
  20. Daiichi Sankyo
  21. Eli Lilly
  22. Merck
  23. Schering-Plough
  24. Novartis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether an evaluation incorporating coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is more effective than standard evaluation in the emergency department in patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes. METHODS In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients 40 to 74 years of age with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes but without ischemic electrocardiographic changes or an initial positive troponin test to early CCTA or to standard evaluation in the emergency department on weekdays during daylight hours between April 2010 and January 2012. The primary end point was length of stay in the hospital. Secondary end points included rates of discharge from the emergency department, major adverse cardiovascular events at 28 days, and cumulative costs. Safety end points were undetected acute coronary syndromes. RESULTS The rate of acute coronary syndromes among 1000 patients with a mean (+/- SD) age of 54 +/- 8 years (47% women) was 8%. After early CCTA, as compared with standard evaluation, the mean length of stay in the hospital was reduced by 7.6 hours (P<0.001) and more patients were discharged directly from the emergency department (47% vs. 12%, P<0.001). There were no undetected acute coronary syndromes and no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events at 28 days. After CCTA, there was more downstream testing and higher radiation exposure. The cumulative mean cost of care was similar in the CCTA group and the standard-evaluation group ($4,289 and $4,060, respectively; P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS In patients in the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes, incorporating CCTA into a triage strategy improved the efficiency of clinical decision making, as compared with a standard evaluation in the emergency department, but it resulted in an increase in downstream testing and radiation exposure with no decrease in the overall costs of care. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ROMICAT-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01084239.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available