Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain.

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.).

Sex differences in the effectiveness of early coronary computed tomographic angiography compared with standard emergency department evaluation for acute chest pain: the rule-out myocardial infarction with Computer-Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT)-II Trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluate sex-based differences in the effectiveness of early cardiac computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) and standard emergency department (ED) evaluation in patients with acute chest pain. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Rule-Out Myocardial Infarction With Computer-Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT)-II multicenter, controlled trial, we randomized 1000 patients (47% women) 40 to 74 years of age with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome to an early CCTA or standard ED evaluation. In this prespecified analysis, women in the CCTA arm had a greater reduction in length of stay, lower hospital admission rates, and lesser increased cumulative radiation dose than men in a comparison of ED strategies (P for interaction ≤0.02). Although women had lower acute coronary syndrome rates than men (3% versus 12%; P<0.0001), sex differences in length of stay persisted after adjustment for baseline differences, including acute coronary syndrome rate (P for interaction <0.03). Length of stay was similar between sexes with normal CCTA findings (P=0.11). There was no missed acute coronary syndrome for either sex. No difference was observed in major adverse cardiac events between sexes and ED strategies (P for interaction =0.39). Women had more normal CCTA examinations than men (58% versus 37%; P<0.0001), less obstructive coronary disease by CCTA (5% versus 17%; P=0.0001), but similar normalcy rates for functional testing (P=0.65). Men in the CCTA arm had the highest rate of invasive coronary angiography (18%), whereas women had comparable low 5% rates regardless of ED strategy. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provides data supporting an early CCTA strategy as an attractive option in women presenting to the ED with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome. The findings may be explained by lower CAD prevalence and severity in women than men. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01084239.

Impact of race and ethnicity on inhospital outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (report from the 2000-2001 New York State Angioplasty Registry).

BACKGROUND: Studies regarding the impact of race and ethnicity on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the modern era are limited. METHODS: Using the 2000 and 2001 New York State PCI Databases, we compared baseline clinical, demographic, and angiographic characteristics and subsequent inhospital events among 76,928 patients of black, Hispanic, and white racial/ethnic backgrounds. We sought to determine the influence of race and ethnicity, if any, on post-PCI outcomes. RESULTS: Blacks and Hispanics were younger and more likely to be hypertensive, diabetic, obese, in congestive heart failure, and have chronic renal insufficiency. Whites were more likely to be men, have multivessel disease, and receive a stent. There was no significant difference in unadjusted post-PCI inhospital mortality (0.7% for all groups) or major adverse cardiac event (defined as death, emergent coronary bypass, or stroke) among all 3 racial groups. After correcting for clinical and demographic variables, race/ethnicity was not a significant predictor of death or major adverse cardiac event. CONCLUSION: Minority patients of black and Hispanic decent have a significantly higher incidence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors and present for angioplasty at a younger age compared with whites. However, there is no significant difference in outcomes after angioplasty among these racial/ethnic groups.

Safety of single versus multi-vessel angioplasty for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multi-vessel coronary artery disease: report from the New York State Angioplasty Registry.

BACKGROUND: The conventional strategy for primary angioplasty during acute myocardial infarction is angioplasty of the infarct-related vessel, even in patients with multi-vessel disease. Patients, however, often have significant lesions in multiple coronary arteries and a strategy for multi-vessel angioplasty during acute myocardial infarction has not been explored. The purpose of this study was to examine whether multi-vessel angioplasty is as safe as infarct-related vessel angioplasty in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease during acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: Using the 2000-2001 New York State Angioplasty Registry database, we compared the in-hospital clinical outcomes of patients with multi-vessel disease (>70% stenosis in at least two major coronary arteries), who underwent either multi-vessel angioplasty (n=632) or infarct-related vessel angioplasty (n=1350) within 24 h of acute myocardial infarction. Patients with previous myocardial infarction, angioplasty, bypass surgery, or cardiogenic shock were excluded. RESULTS: Patients in the multi-vessel angioplasty group were less likely to be female, to have peripheral vascular disease or diabetes. They had more complex lesions and were more likely to receive stents. In-hospital mortality was three-fold lower (0.8 versus 2.3%, P=0.018) in the multi-vessel angioplasty group. No differences were observed in other ischemic complications, renal failure, or length of stay. After multivariate analysis, multi-vessel angioplasty remained a significant predictor of lower in-hospital death (odds ratio=0.27, 95% confidence interval=0.08-0.90, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the added complexity of multi-vessel angioplasty, patients in this group had significantly lower in-hospital mortality. Therefore, a strategy of multi-vessel angioplasty during acute myocardial infarction may be safe compared with infarct-related angioplasty in selected patients.

Coronary CT Angiography Versus Standard Emergency Department Evaluation for Acute Chest Pain and Diabetic Patients: Is There Benefit With Early Coronary CT Angiography? Results of the Randomized Comparative Effectiveness ROMICAT II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) reduces emergency department length of stay compared with standard evaluation in patients with low- and intermediate-risk acute chest pain. Whether diabetic patients have similar benefits is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prespecified analysis of the Rule Out Myocardial Ischemia/Infarction by Computer Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT II) multicenter trial, we randomized 1000 patients (17% diabetic) with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome to CCTA or standard evaluation. The rate of acute coronary syndrome was 8% in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (P=1.0). Length of stay was unaffected by the CCTA strategy for diabetic patients (23.9 versus 27.2 hours, P=0.86) but was reduced for nondiabetic patients compared with standard evaluation (8.4 versus 26.5 hours, P<0.0001; P interaction=0.004). CCTA resulted in 3-fold more direct emergency department discharge in both groups (each P≤0.0001, P interaction=0.27). No difference in hospital admissions was seen between the 2 strategies in diabetic and nondiabetic patients (P interaction=0.09). Both groups had more downstream testing and higher radiation doses with CCTA, but these were highest in diabetic patients (all P interaction≤0.04). Diabetic patients had fewer normal CCTAs than nondiabetic patients (32% versus 50%, P=0.003) and similar normalcy rates with standard evaluation (P=0.70). Notably, 66% of diabetic patients had no or mild stenosis by CCTA with short length of stay comparable to that of nondiabetic patients (P=0.34), whereas those with >50% stenosis had a high prevalence of acute coronary syndrome, invasive coronary angiography, and revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of coronary anatomy with CCTA is beneficial for diabetic patients and can discriminate between lower risk patients with no or little coronary artery disease who can be discharged immediately and higher risk patients with moderate to severe disease who warrant further workup. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01084239.

Use of coronary artery calcium scanning beyond coronary computed tomographic angiography in the emergency department evaluation for acute chest pain: the ROMICAT II trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan provides added value to coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in emergency department patients with acute chest pain remains unsettled. We sought to determine the value of CAC scan in patients with acute chest pain undergoing CCTA. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the multicenter Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computer-Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT) II trial, we enrolled low-intermediate risk emergency department patients with symptoms suggesting acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this prespecified subanalysis of 473 patients (54±8 years, 53% men) who underwent both CAC scanning and CCTA, the ACS rate was 8%. Overall, 53% of patients had CAC=0 of whom 2 (0.8%) developed ACS, whereas 7% had CAC>400 with 49% whom developed ACS. C-statistic of CAC>0 was 0.76, whereas that using the optimal cut point of CAC≥22 was 0.81. Continuous CAC score had lower discriminatory capacity than CCTA (c-statistic, 0.86 versus 0.92; P=0.03). Compared with CCTA alone, there was no benefit combining CAC score with CCTA (c-statistic, 0.93; P=0.88) or with selective CCTA strategies after initial CAC>0 or optimal cut point CAC≥22 (P≥0.09). Mean radiation dose from CAC acquisition was 1.4±0.7 mSv. Higher CAC scores resulted in more nondiagnostic CCTA studies although the majority remained interpretable. CONCLUSIONS: In emergency department patients with acute chest pain, CAC score does not provide incremental value beyond CCTA for ACS diagnosis. CAC=0 does not exclude ACS, nor a high CAC score preclude interpretation of CCTA in most patients. Thus, CAC results should not influence the decision to proceed with CCTA, and the decision to perform a CAC scan should be balanced with the additional radiation exposure required. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01084239.

Impact of body mass index on in-hospital outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (report from the New York State Angioplasty Registry).

Although obesity traditionally has been considered a risk factor for coronary revascularization, recent data from registry studies have shown a possible protective effect of obesity on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Using data from the New York State Angioplasty database over a 4-year period, we analyzed 95,435 consecutive patients who underwent PCI. Classification of body mass index (BMI) was: underweight (<18.5 kg/m(2)), healthy weight (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m(2)), overweight (25 to 29.9 kg/m(2)), moderate obesity (class I) (30 to 34.9 kg/m(2)), severe obesity (class II) (35 to 39.9 kg/m(2)), and very severe obesity (class III) (>40 kg/m(2)). In-hospital postprocedural mortality and complications were compared among these groups. Compared with healthy weight patients, patient with class I or II obesity had lower in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (combined death, myocardial infarction, and emergency surgery), whereas patients at the extremes of BMI (underweight and class III obese patients) had significantly higher mortality and MACE rates. Adjusted hazards ratios for in-hospital mortality according to BMI were: underweight (2.69), healthy weight (1.0), overweight (0.90), class I obese (0.74), class II obese (0.67), and class III obese (1.63). Patients at the extremes of BMI (<18.5 and >40 kg/m(2)) were at increased risk of MACEs, including mortality after PCI, whereas patients who were moderately to severely obese (BMIs 30 to 40 kg/m(2)) were at lower risk than healthy weight patients.

Can we identify vulnerable patients at risk for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction based on their clinical characteristics?

OBJECTIVE: Coronary artery plaque rupture is a sudden, unpredictable event leading to acute coronary syndrome. Thus far, there is no clinical characteristic to distinguish the patients at risk for acute myocardial infarction from those with more stable coronary artery disease. The purpose of this study was to identify clinical predictors of first ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS: We retrospectively compared 116 consecutive patients presenting with their first STEMI for primary angioplasty and 216 ambulatory patients with stable angina requiring their first coronary intervention. RESULTS: Patients with STEMI were younger, more likely to be smokers, but less likely to have hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. Diabetes was present equally between the two groups. Cardioprotective medication usage, such as aspirin and statin, was much lower among patients presenting with their first STEMI. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, patients with STEMI presumably from plaque rupture have fewer traditional risk factors compared with patients with stable angina. Identifying these vulnerable patients at risk for plaque rupture may enable early institution of cardioprotective pharmacotherapy to prevent their first acute coronary syndrome occurrence.