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

Coronary Artery Calcium Score Predicts Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Stable Chest Pain

ackground Coronary artery calcium (CAC) has prognostic value for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in asymptomatic individuals, whereas its role in symptomatic patients is less clear. Purpose To assess the prognostic value of CAC scoring for MACE in participants with stable chest pain initially referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Materials and Methods This prespecified subgroup analysis from the Diagnostic Imaging Strategies for Patients With Stable Chest Pain and Intermediate Risk of Coronary Artery Disease (DISCHARGE) trial, conducted between October 2015 and April 2019 across 26 centers in 16 countries, focused on adult patients with stable chest pain referred for ICA. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either ICA or coronary CT. CAC scores from noncontrast CT scans were categorized into low, intermediate, and high groups based on scores of 0, 1-399, and 400 or higher, respectively. The end point of the study was the occurrence of MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death) over a median 3.5-year follow-up, analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression tests. Results The study involved 1749 participants (mean age, 60 years ± 10 [SD]; 992 female). The prevalence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) at CT angiography rose from 4.1% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.8) in the CAC score 0 group to 76.1% (95% CI: 70.3, 81.2) in the CAC score 400 or higher group. Revascularization rates increased from 1.7% to 46.2% across the same groups (P < .001). The CAC score 0 group had a lower MACE risk (0.5%; HR, 0.08 [95% CI: 0.02, 0.30]; P < .001), as did the 1-399 CAC score group (1.9%; HR, 0.27 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.59]; P = .001), compared with the 400 or higher CAC score group (6.8%). No significant difference in MACE between sexes was observed (P = .68). Conclusion In participants with stable chest pain initially referred for ICA, a CAC score of 0 showed very low risk of MACE, and higher CAC scores showed increasing risk of obstructive CAD, revascularization, and MACE at follow-up