Nam Ju Lee1, Harold Litt2. 1. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. Harold.litt@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To compare outcomes between registries and randomized controlled trials of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA)-based versus standard of care approaches to the initial evaluation of patients with acute chest pain. RECENT FINDINGS: Randomized trials have demonstrated CCTA to be a safe and efficient tool for triage of low- to intermediate-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Recent studies demonstrate heterogeneous result using different standard of care approaches for evaluation of hard endpoints in comparison with standard evaluation. Also, there has been continued concern for increase in subsequent testing after coronary CTA. Although CCTA improves detection of coronary artery disease, it is uncertain if it will bring improvement of long-term health outcomes at this point of time. Careful analysis of the previous results and further investigation will be required to validate evaluation of hard endpoints.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To compare outcomes between registries and randomized controlled trials of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA)-based versus standard of care approaches to the initial evaluation of patients with acute chest pain. RECENT FINDINGS: Randomized trials have demonstrated CCTA to be a safe and efficient tool for triage of low- to intermediate-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Recent studies demonstrate heterogeneous result using different standard of care approaches for evaluation of hard endpoints in comparison with standard evaluation. Also, there has been continued concern for increase in subsequent testing after coronary CTA. Although CCTA improves detection of coronary artery disease, it is uncertain if it will bring improvement of long-term health outcomes at this point of time. Careful analysis of the previous results and further investigation will be required to validate evaluation of hard endpoints.
Entities:
Keywords:
CCTA; CT; Cardiac; Coronary; Emergency department; Standard of care
Authors: Frank J Rybicki; James E Udelson; W Frank Peacock; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Eric M Isselbacher; Ella Kazerooni; Michael C Kontos; Harold Litt; Pamela K Woodard Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Harold I Litt; Constantine Gatsonis; Brad Snyder; Harjit Singh; Chadwick D Miller; Daniel W Entrikin; James M Leaming; Laurence J Gavin; Charissa B Pacella; Judd E Hollander Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Udo Hoffmann; Antonio J Pena; Fabian Moselewski; Maros Ferencik; Suhny Abbara; Ricardo C Cury; Claudia U Chae; John T Nagurney Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Georges El-Hayek; Alexandre Benjo; Seth Uretsky; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Randy Cohen; Daniel Bamira; Patricia Chavez; Francisco Nascimento; Orlando Santana; Rajan Patel; João L Cavalcante Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Udo Hoffmann; John T Nagurney; Fabian Moselewski; Antonio Pena; Maros Ferencik; Claudia U Chae; Ricardo C Cury; Javed Butler; Suhny Abbara; David F Brown; Alex Manini; John H Nichols; Stephan Achenbach; Thomas J Brady Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-10-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E Wu; J T Ortiz; P Tejedor; D C Lee; C Bucciarelli-Ducci; P Kansal; J C Carr; T A Holly; D Lloyd-Jones; F J Klocke; R O Bonow Journal: Heart Date: 2007-12-10 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Edward Hulten; Christopher Pickett; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Todd C Villines; Sara Petrillo; Marcelo F Di Carli; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 24.094