Search

BACKGROUNDIn the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), computed tomography (CT) is an accurate, noninvasive alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA in the management of CAD to reduce the frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain.METHODSWe conducted a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing CT with ICA as initial diagnostic imaging strategies for guiding the treatment of patients with stable chest pain who had an intermediate pretest probability of obstructive CAD and were referred for ICA at one of 26 European centers. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) over 3.5 years. Key secondary outcomes were procedure-related complications and angina pectoris.RESULTSAmong 3561 patients (56.2% of whom were women), follow-up was complete for 3523 (98.9%). Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 38 of 1808 patients (2.1%) in the CT group and in 52 of 1753 (3.0%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI), 0.46 to 1.07; P=0.10). Major procedure-related complications occurred in 9 patients (0.5%) in the CT group and in 33 (1.9%) in the ICA group (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.55). Angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up was reported in 8.8% of the patients in the CT group and in 7.5% of those in the ICA group (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.48).CONCLUSIONSAmong patients referred for ICA because of stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of CAD, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was similar in the CT group and the ICA group. The frequency of major procedure-related complications was lower with an initial CT strategy.

Objectives To test the accuracy of clinical pre-test probability (PTP) for prediction of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in a pan-European setting. Methods Patients with suspected CAD and stable chest pain who were clinically referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) or computed tomography (CT) were included by clinical sites participating in the pilot study of the European multi-centre DISCHARGE trial. PTP of CAD was determined using the Diamond-Forrester (D+F) prediction model initially introduced in 1979 and the updated D+F model from 2011. Obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) was defined by one at least 50% diameter coronary stenosis by both CT and ICA. Results In total, 1440 patients (654 female, 786 male) were included at 25 clinical sites from May 2014 until July 2017. Of these patients, 725 underwent CT, while 715 underwent ICA. Both prediction models overestimated the prevalence of obstructive CAD (31.7%, 456 of 1440 patients, PTP: initial D+F 58.9% (28.1–90.6%), updated D+F 47.3% (34.2–59.9%), both p < 0.001), but overestimation of disease prevalence was higher for the initial D+F (p < 0.001). The discriminative ability was higher for the updated D+F 2011 (AUC of 0.73 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–0.76 versus AUC of 0.70 CI 0.67–0.73 for the initial D+F; p < 0.001; odds ratio (or) 1.55 CI 1.29–1.86, net reclassification index 0.11 CI 0.05–0.16, p < 0.001). Conclusions Clinical PTP calculation using the initial and updated D+F prediction models relevantly overestimates the actual prevalence of obstructive CAD in patients with stable chest pain clinically referred for ICA and CT suggesting that further refinements to improve clinical decision-making are needed. Trial registration https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02400229 Key Points • Clinical pre-test probability calculation using the initial and updated D+F model overestimates the prevalence of obstructive CAD identified by ICA and CT. • Overestimation of disease prevalence is higher for the initial D+F compared with the updated D+F. • Diagnostic accuracy of PTP assessment varies strongly between different clinical sites throughout Europe.

More than 3.5 million invasive coronary angiographies (ICA) are performed in Europe annually. Approximately 2 million of these invasive procedures might be reduced by noninvasive tests because no coronary intervention is performed. Computed tomography (CT) is the most accurate noninvasive test for detection and exclusion of coronary artery disease (CAD). To investigate the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA, we designed the European pragmatic multicentre DISCHARGE trial funded by the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union (EC-GA 603266). In this trial, patients with a low-to-intermediate pretest probability (10–60 %) of suspected CAD and a clinical indication for ICA because of stable chest pain will be randomised in a 1-to-1 ratio to CT or ICA. CT and ICA findings guide subsequent management decisions by the local heart teams according to current evidence and European guidelines. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke as a composite endpoint will be the primary outcome measure. Secondary and other outcomes include cost-effectiveness, radiation exposure, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), socioeconomic status, lifestyle, adverse events related to CT/ICA, and gender differences. The DISCHARGE trial will assess the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA. • Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. • Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is the reference standard for detection of CAD. • Noninvasive computed tomography angiography excludes CAD with high sensitivity. • CT may effectively reduce the approximately 2 million negative ICAs in Europe. • DISCHARGE addresses this hypothesis in patients with low-to-intermediate pretest probability for CAD.

ObjectivesThe purpose of this research was to perform a feasibility study of prophylactic coronary revascularization in patients with preoperative extensive stress-induced ischemia.BackgroundProphylactic coronary revascularization in vascular surgery patients with coronary artery disease does not improve postoperative outcome. If a beneficial effect is to be expected, then at least those with extensive coronary artery disease should benefit from this strategy.MethodsOne thousand eight hundred eighty patients were screened, and those with ≥3 risk factors underwent cardiac testing using dobutamine echocardiography (17-segment model) or stress nuclear imaging (6-wall model). Those with extensive stress-induced ischemia (≥5 segments or ≥3 walls) were randomly assigned for additional revascularization. All received beta-blockers aiming at a heart rate of 60 to 65 beats/min, and antiplatelet therapy was continued during surgery. The end points were the composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction at 30 days and during 1-year follow-up.ResultsOf 430 high-risk patients, 101 (23%) showed extensive ischemia and were randomly assigned to revascularization (n = 49) or no revascularization. Coronary angiography showed 2-vessel disease in 12 (24%), 3-vessel disease in 33 (67%), and left main in 4 (8%). Two patients died after revascularization, but before operation, because of a ruptured aneurysm. Revascularization did not improve 30-day outcome; the incidence of the composite end point was 43% versus 33% (odds ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 2.8; p = 0.30). Also, no benefit during 1-year follow-up was observed after coronary revascularization (49% vs. 44%, odds ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 2.3; p = 0.48).ConclusionsIn this randomized pilot study, designed to obtain efficacy and safety estimates, preoperative coronary revascularization in high-risk patients was not associated with an improved outcome.