Literature DB >> 21606093

Impact of coronary computed tomographic angiography results on patient and physician behavior in a low-risk population.

John W McEvoy1, Michael J Blaha, Khurram Nasir, Yeonyee E Yoon, Eue-Keun Choi, Ik-Sung Cho, Eun-Ju Chun, Sang-Il Choi, Juan J Rivera, Roger S Blumenthal, Hyuk-Jae Chang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The impact of screening coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) on physician and patient behavior is unclear.
METHODS: We studied asymptomatic patients from a health-screening program. Our study population comprised 1000 patients who underwent CCTA as part of a prior study and a matched control group of 1000 patients who did not. We assessed medication use, secondary test referrals, revascularizations, and cardiovascular events at 90 days and 18 months.
RESULTS: A total of 215 patients in the CCTA group had coronary atherosclerosis (CCTA positive). Medication use was increased in the CCTA-positive group compared with both the CCTA-negative (no atherosclerosis) and control groups at 90 days (statin use, 34% vs 5% vs 8%, respectively; aspirin use, 40% vs 5% vs 8%, respectively), and 18 months (statin use, 20% vs 3% vs 6%, respectively; aspirin use, 26% vs 3% vs 6%, respectively). After multivariable risk adjustment, the odds ratios for statin and aspirin use in the CCTA-positive group at 18 months were 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-8.3) and 4.2 (95% CI, 1.8-9.6), respectively. At 90 days, in the total CCTA group vs controls, there were more secondary tests (55 [5%] vs 22 [2%]; P < .001) and revascularizations (13 [1%] vs 1 [0.1%]; P < .001). One cardiovascular event occurred in each group over 18 months.
CONCLUSIONS: An abnormal screening CCTA result was predictive of increased aspirin and statin use at 90 days and 18 months, although medication use lessened over time. Screening CCTA was associated with increased invasive testing, without any difference in events at 18 months. Screening CCTA should not be considered a justifiable test at this time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21606093     DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.204

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  21 in total

Review 1.  Low-dose cardiovascular computed tomography: where are the limits?

Authors:  Paul Schoenhagen; Carla M Thompson; Sandra S Halliburton
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 2.  Polygenic Scores to Assess Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Clinical Perspectives and Basic Implications.

Authors:  Krishna G Aragam; Pradeep Natarajan
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 17.367

3.  Potential for coronary CT angiography to tailor medical therapy beyond preventive guideline-based recommendations: insights from the ROMICAT I trial.

Authors:  Amit Pursnani; Christopher L Schlett; Thomas Mayrhofer; Csilla Celeng; Pearl Zakroysky; Fabian Bamberg; John T Nagurney; Quynh A Truong; Udo Hoffmann
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr       Date:  2015-02-18

Review 4.  Coronary artery calcium and primary prevention risk assessment: what is the evidence? An updated meta-analysis on patient and physician behavior.

Authors:  Seamus P Whelton; Khurram Nasir; Michael J Blaha; Heidi Gransar; Thomas S Metkus; Josef Coresh; Daniel S Berman; Roger S Blumenthal
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2012-07-01

Review 5.  Comparison of mid- to long-term clinical outcomes between anatomical testing and usual care in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Authors:  In-Chang Hwang; Sol Ji Choi; Ji Eun Choi; Eun-Bi Ko; Jae Kyung Suh; Insun Choi; Hyun-Jae Kang; Yong-Jin Kim; Joo Youn Kim
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 2.882

6.  The prognostic significance of coronary CT angiography.

Authors:  Kevin M Woods; Collin Fischer; Michael K Cheezum; Edward A Hulten; Binh Nguyen; Todd C Villines
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.931

7.  Calcium score, coronary artery disease extent and severity, and clinical outcomes among low Framingham risk patients with low vs high lifetime risk: results from the CONFIRM registry.

Authors:  Edward Hulten; Todd C Villines; Michael K Cheezum; Daniel S Berman; Allison Dunning; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Victor Y Cheng; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Ricardo C Cury; Augustin Delago; Gudrun Feuchtner; Martin Hadamitzky; Jörg Hausleiter; Philipp A Kaufmann; Yong-Jin Kim; Jonathon Leipsic; Fay Y Lin; Erica Maffei; Fabian Plank; Gilbert L Raff; Leslee J Shaw; James K Min
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 8.  What is the role of calcium scoring in the age of coronary computed tomographic angiography?

Authors:  Parag H Joshi; Michael J Blaha; Roger S Blumenthal; Ron Blankstein; Khurram Nasir
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  Erectile dysfunction and cardiovascular events in diabetic men: a meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Tomohide Yamada; Kazuo Hara; Hitomi Umematsu; Ryo Suzuki; Takashi Kadowaki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  How Do We Incorporate Polygenic Risk Scores in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment and Management?

Authors:  Trevor D Hadley; Ali M Agha; Christie M Ballantyne
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 5.113

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.