Diagnostic performance and cost of CT angiography versus stress ECG — A randomized prospective study of suspected acute coronary syndrome chest pain in the emergency department (CT-COMPARE)☆,☆☆
Introduction
Chest pain is a common cause for presentations to hospital emergency departments (EDs). The clinical investigation of undifferentiated chest pain must include the expeditious assessment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Many chest pain assessment pathways include serial electrocardiography and biomarkers followed by a provocative stress test to rule out myocardial ischemia [1], [2]. In many institutions, treadmill exercise stress ECG (ExECG) is used to stratify intermediate risk patients due to the widespread availability and low cost, and is a Class IB indication in the AHA/ACC guidelines [3]. However, ExECG has relatively limited diagnostic performance with low sensitivity and specificity in unselected populations [4]. More recently, coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) has been investigated as a rapid, noninvasive test with a high negative predictive value and reduced length of stay in low to intermediate risk patients with possible ACS [5], [6], [7]. These studies have suggested that CCTA-based care is also less expensive compared to provocative stress testing when coupled with imaging. However, cost analyses suggest that CCTA may be more expensive compared to ExECG-based care [8]. To date, there have been no large-scale clinical trials comparing CCTA-based care to ExECG-based care in possible ACS patients.
The CT Coronary Angiography Compared to Exercise ECG (CT-COMPARE) study was a prospective randomized trial that compared dual source CCTA with ExECG as part of the standard of care in low–intermediate risk possible ACS patients presenting to the ED. The primary endpoints were the diagnostic performance measures and the hospital-based costs of CCTA-based care as compared to ECG-based care.
Section snippets
Study design
CT-COMPARE was a randomized, prospective, non-blinded single-center study conducted in a large tertiary academic Australian hospital. Enrolled subjects were randomized to either CCTA or ExECG performed as part of an established chest pain assessment service [1], [9]. The local Human Research and Ethics Committee approved the study (HREC/09/QPCH/89) and all subjects were required to give informed consent prior to randomization. The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical
Results
From January 2010 to April 2011, 717 low-to-intermediate risk patients with chest pain were enrolled in the study in a 1:1 ratio. Sixty one patients (8%) were subsequently excluded prior to testing due to not meeting strict enrolment criteria (Fig. 1). Eighty four patients (11%) were excluded at completion of the trial in consultation with the Human Research Ethics Committee due to misplacement of informed consent documentation. Data for included and secondarily excluded patients were compared
Discussion
For subjects presenting to the ED with acute chest pain, CCTA had better positive predictive value than ExECG, combined with a significantly reduced length of stay and reduced per-patient cost.
In an outpatient population, CCTA has emerged as an accurate and rapid tool for the exclusion of coronary artery disease [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Recent randomized controlled trials in acute ED patients that compared CCTA to nuclear SPECT [7], or to a mixed standard-of-care [5], [6] showed lower
Limitations
Limitations of this study need to be addressed. First, of the 21% of eligible patients not enrolled, 11% had misplaced informed consent primarily due to loss of paper documentation during patient transfers. This resulted in a disproportionate exclusion of patients in the ExECG group. An analysis between these excluded and study patients show no meaningful differences between baseline data (clearly outlined in Appendix 2), but primary outcomes could be affected if their data were included in the
Conclusions
In symptomatic patients at low–intermediate risk for acute coronary syndrome presenting to the emergency department, coronary CT angiography is faster and less expensive, with improved diagnostic performance compared to exercise treadmill ECG-based care. These data add additional proof that protocols using CCTA rather than stress testing-based care in emergency departments should be considered. Further verification of these data in a multicenter randomized trial is warranted.
Acknowledgments
We thank the staff of the Prince Charles Hospital Medical Imaging Department, Liz Warburton, Steve Graves, Kathryn Arnett, and our patients.
References (26)
- et al.
ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (committee to update the 1997 exercise testing guidelines)
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2002) - et al.
The CT-STAT (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Systematic Triage of Acute Chest Pain Patients to Treatment) trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2011) - et al.
Economic outcome of cardiac CT-based evaluation and standard of care for suspected acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department: a decision analytic model
Acad. Radiol.
(2012) - et al.
The value of dual-source 64-slice CT coronary angiography in the assessment of patients presenting to an acute chest pain service
Heart Lung Circ.
(2010) - et al.
Clinical value of 12-lead electrocardiogram after successful reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Zwolle Myocardial infarction Study Group
Lancet
(1997) - et al.
Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: current clinical applications: Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand guidelines
Heart Lung Circ.
(2011) - et al.
Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography according to pre-test probability of coronary artery disease and severity of coronary arterial calcification. The CORE-64 (Coronary Artery Evaluation Using 64-Row Multidetector Computed Tomography Angiography) international multicenter study
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2012) - et al.
Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2008) - et al.
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in women versus men with angina pectoris
Am. J. Cardiol.
(2007) - et al.
Coronary angiographic evaluation of low-risk chest pain in the emergency department CT-STAT, or maybe not quite that fast?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2011)
Outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
Is it cost-effective to use a test to decide which individuals with an intermediate cardiovascular disease risk would benefit from statin treatment?
Int. J. Cardiol.
2-Hour accelerated diagnostic protocol to assess patients with chest pain symptoms using contemporary troponins as the only biomarker: the ADAPT trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
Cited by (94)
Limited Axial Interpretation of Coronary CT Angiography in the Emergency Department Setting
2024, Journal of the American College of RadiologyCoronary Artery Disease: Role of Computed Tomography and Recent Advances
2024, Radiologic Clinics of North America2022 use of coronary computed tomographic angiography for patients presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department: An expert consensus document of the Society of cardiovascular computed tomography (SCCT): Endorsed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and North American Society for cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI)
2023, Journal of Cardiovascular Computed TomographyContemporary Chest Pain Evaluation: The Australian Case for Cardiac CT
2023, Heart Lung and CirculationCAD-RADS™ 2.0 – 2022 Coronary Artery Disease – Reporting and Data System.: An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the North America Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI)
2022, Journal of the American College of Radiology
- ☆
Funding: The study was supported by grants from 1) the Queensland Emergency Medicine Research Foundation (#QEMRF-EMSS-2009-022), 2) the Smart Futures Fellowship Early Career Grant (Queensland State Government #ISF783), 3) the Washington–Queensland Trans-Pacific Fellowship fund and 4) Grant Number 5KL2RR025015-02 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. The grant bodies had no input on study design, data analysis or writing.
- ☆☆
No conflicts of interest or relationships with industry.