Pilot study of the multicentre DISCHARGE trial: image quality and protocol adherence results of computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography (vol 30, pg 1997, 2020)

The original version of this article, published on 16 December 2019, unfortunately contained two mistakes.Cardiovascular Aspects of Radiolog

Pilot study of the multicentre DISCHARGE Trial: image quality and protocol adherence results of computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography

Objective To implement detailed EU cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) quality criteria in the multicentre DISCHARGE trial (FP72007-2013, EC-GA 603266), we reviewed image quality and adherence to CCTA protocol and to the recommendations of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in a pilot study. Materials and methods From every clinical centre, imaging datasets of three patients per arm were assessed for adherence to the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the pilot study, predefined standards for the CCTA protocol and ICA recommendations, image quality and non-diagnostic (NDX) rate. These parameters were compared via multinomial regression and ANOVA. If a site did not reach the minimum quality level, additional datasets had to be sent before entering into the final accepted database (FADB). Results We analysed 226 cases (150 CCTA/76 ICA). The inclusion/exclusion criteria were not met by 6 of the 226 (2.7%) datasets. The predefined standard was not met by 13 of 76 ICA datasets (17.1%). This percentage decreased between the initial CCTA database and the FADB (multinomial regression, 53 of 70 vs 17 of 75 [76%] vs [23%]). The signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio of the FADB did not improve significantly (ANOVA, p = 0.20; p = 0.09). The CTA NDX rate was reduced, but not significantly (initial CCTA database 15 of 70 [21.4%]) and FADB 9 of 75 [12%]; p = 0.13). Conclusion We were able to increase conformity to the inclusion/exclusion criteria and CCTA protocol, improve image quality and decrease the CCTA NDX rate by implementing EU CCTA quality criteria and ICA recommendations.Cardiovascular Aspects of Radiolog

Correction to: Pilot study of the multicentre DISCHARGE trial: image quality and protocol adherence results of computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography

The original version of this article, published on 16 December 2019, unfortunately contained two mistakes. Firstly, the name of Jonathan Dermot Dodd was presented incorrectly. Secondly, the information about the equal contribution of Gianluca De Rubeis and Adriane E. Napp, and Marc Dewey and Marco Francone is missing. The corrected author list is given above and the missing article note below. Furthermore, affiliation 48 from the original version of the article was a duplicate and is therefore removed

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