Comparative effectiveness of initial computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography in women and men with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease: multicentre randomised trial

To assess the comparative effectiveness of computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography in women and men with stable chest pain suspected to be caused by coronary artery disease

CT or Invasive Coronary Angiography in Stable Chest Pain

BACKGROUND In 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. METHODS We 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. RESULTS Among 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). CONCLUSIONS Among 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

Computed Tomography Versus Invasive Coronary Angiography in Patients With Diabetes and Suspected Coronary Artery Disease

Objective: To compare cardiac computed tomography (CT) with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the initial strategy in patients with diabetes and stable chest pain. Research design and methods: This prespecified analysis of the multicenter DISCHARGE trial in 16 European countries was performed in patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability of coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke), and the secondary end point was expanded MACE (including transient ischemic attacks and major procedure-related complications). Results: Follow-up at a median of 3.5 years was available in 3,541 patients of whom 557 (CT group n = 263 vs. ICA group n = 294) had diabetes and 2,984 (CT group n = 1,536 vs. ICA group n = 1,448) did not. No statistically significant diabetes interaction was found for MACE (P = 0.45), expanded MACE (P = 0.35), or major procedure-related complications (P = 0.49). In both patients with and without diabetes, the rate of MACE did not differ between CT and ICA groups. In patients with diabetes, the expanded MACE end point occurred less frequently in the CT group than in the ICA group (3.8% [10 of 263] vs. 8.2% [24 of 294], hazard ratio [HR] 0.45 [95% CI 0.22-0.95]), as did the major procedure-related complication rate (0.4% [1 of 263] vs. 2.7% [8 of 294], HR 0.30 [95% CI 0.13 - 0.63]). Conclusions: In patients with diabetes referred for ICA for the investigation of stable chest pain, a CT-first strategy compared with an ICA-first strategy showed no difference in MACE and may potentially be associated with a lower rate of expanded MACE and major procedure-related complications

Impact of smoking in patients with suspected coronary artery disease in the randomised DISCHARGE trial

Objectives: To investigate if the effect of cardiac computed tomography (CT) vs. invasive coronary angiography (ICA) on cardiovascular events differs based on smoking status. Materials and methods: This pre-specified subgroup analysis of the pragmatic, prospective, multicentre, randomised DISCHARGE trial (NCT02400229) involved 3561 patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or stroke). Secondary endpoints included an expanded MACE composite (MACE, transient ischaemic attack, or major procedure-related complications). Results: Of 3445 randomised patients with smoking data (mean age 59.1 years + / - 9.7, 1151 men), at 3.5-year follow-up, the effect of CT vs. ICA on MACE was consistent across smoking groups (p for interaction = 0.98). The percutaneous coronary intervention rate was significantly lower with a CT-first strategy in smokers and former smokers (p = 0.01 for both). A CT-first strategy reduced the hazard of major procedure-related complications (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.81; p = 0.045) across smoking groups. In current smokers, the expanded MACE composite was lower in the CT- compared to the ICA-first strategy (2.3% (8) vs 6.0% (18), HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.88). The rate of non-obstructive CAD was significantly higher in all three smoking groups in the CT-first strategy. Conclusion: For patients with stable chest pain referred for ICA, the clinical outcomes of CT were consistent across smoking status. The CT-first approach led to a higher detection rate of non-obstructive CAD and fewer major procedure-related complications in smokers. Clinical relevance statement: This pre-specified sub-analysis of the DISCHARGE trial confirms that a CT-first strategy in patients with stable chest pain referred for invasive coronary angiography with an intermediate pre-test probability of coronary artery disease is as effective as and safer than invasive coronary angiography, irrespective of smoking status. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02400229. Key points: • No randomised studies have assessed smoking status on CT effectiveness in symptomatic patients referred for invasive coronary angiography. • A CT-first strategy results in comparable adverse events, fewer complications, and increased coronary artery disease detection, irrespective of smoking status. • A CT-first strategy is safe and effective for stable chest pain patients with intermediate pre-test probability for CAD, including never smokers