Computed tomography versus invasive coronary angiography: design and methods of the pragmatic randomised multicentre DISCHARGE trial.

OBJECTIVES: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: The DISCHARGE trial will assess the comparative effectiveness of CT and ICA. KEY POINTS: • 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.

Risk assessment of pneumothorax and pulmonary haemorrhage complicating percutaneous co-axial cutting needle lung biopsy.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of radiologists to accurately estimate pneumothorax and pulmonary haemorrhage during percutaneous co-axial cutting needle CT-guided lung biopsy. METHODOLOGY: Patients undergoing cutting needle lung biopsy during the study period were identified; the path taken by the cutting needle marked on each pre-biopsy staging CT scan. Each scan was then reviewed independently by two thoracic radiologists blinded to clinical details and complications; pneumothorax and pulmonary haemorrhage risk estimated with a percentage Visual Analogue Scale. RESULTS: In 134 patients, pneumothorax occurred in 24%. The radiologists differed in the estimation of pneumothorax risk in 55% (74 episodes). When pneumothorax risk was estimated <20% by radiologists 1 and 2, 16% and 14% of biopsies resulted in pneumothorax; where risk was estimated at 20-49%, pneumothorax incidence rose to 33% and 31%; where risk was deemed > or =50%, pneumothorax rate was 87% and 100%. Pulmonary haemorrhage occurred in 4%; estimated haemorrhage risk for biopsies complicated by haemorrhage did not differ significantly from where haemorrhage did not occur. CONCLUSION: Radiologists differ markedly in the estimation of pneumothorax risk for a patient undergoing co-axial lung biopsy. Identifying individual patients developing pneumothorax was only possible when risk was estimated at > or =50%. Pulmonary haemorrhage was uncommon and difficult to predict accurately.