Akash Goyal1, Neha Pagidipati1, C Larry Hill1, Brooke Alhanti1, James E Udelson2, Michael H Picard3, Patricia A Pellikka4, Udo Hoffmann5, Daniel B Mark1, Pamela S Douglas1. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC (A.G., N.P., C.L.H., B.A., D.B.M., P.S.D.). 2. Division of Cardiology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA (J.E.U.). 3. Department of Cardiology (M.H.P.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (P.A.P.). 5. Department of Radiology (U.H.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inconclusive noninvasive tests complicate the care of patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but their prevalence and impact on management, outcomes, and costs are not well described. METHODS: PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) patients were randomized to stress testing (n=4533) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA; n=4677). We assessed relationships between inconclusive results, subsequent testing, a composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina), and healthcare expenditures. RESULTS: Overall, 8.0% of tests were inconclusive (9.7% stress, 6.4% CTA). Compared with negative tests, inconclusive tests were more often referred to a second noninvasive test (stress: 14.6% versus 8.5%, odds ratio [OR], 1.91; CTA: 36.5% versus 8.4%, OR, 5.95; P<0.001) and catheterization (stress: 5.5% versus 2.4%, OR, 2.36; CTA: 23.4% versus 4.1%, OR, 6.49; P<0.001), and composite outcomes were higher for both inconclusive tests (stress: 3.7% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 1.81, P=0.034; CTA: 5.0% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 1.85; P=0.044) and positive tests (stress: 8.3% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 3.50; CTA: 9.2% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 3.66; P<0.001). Twenty-four-month costs were higher for inconclusive tests than negative tests by $2905 (stress) and $4030 (CTA). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable chest pain undergoing a noninvasive test, inconclusive results occurred in 6% of CTA and 10% of stress tests. Compared with those with conclusive negative tests, individuals with inconclusive results more often underwent subsequent testing, had increased medical costs, and experienced worse outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Inconclusive noninvasive tests complicate the care of patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but their prevalence and impact on management, outcomes, and costs are not well described. METHODS: PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) patients were randomized to stress testing (n=4533) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA; n=4677). We assessed relationships between inconclusive results, subsequent testing, a composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina), and healthcare expenditures. RESULTS: Overall, 8.0% of tests were inconclusive (9.7% stress, 6.4% CTA). Compared with negative tests, inconclusive tests were more often referred to a second noninvasive test (stress: 14.6% versus 8.5%, odds ratio [OR], 1.91; CTA: 36.5% versus 8.4%, OR, 5.95; P<0.001) and catheterization (stress: 5.5% versus 2.4%, OR, 2.36; CTA: 23.4% versus 4.1%, OR, 6.49; P<0.001), and composite outcomes were higher for both inconclusive tests (stress: 3.7% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 1.81, P=0.034; CTA: 5.0% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 1.85; P=0.044) and positive tests (stress: 8.3% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 3.50; CTA: 9.2% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 3.66; P<0.001). Twenty-four-month costs were higher for inconclusive tests than negative tests by $2905 (stress) and $4030 (CTA). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable chest pain undergoing a noninvasive test, inconclusive results occurred in 6% of CTA and 10% of stress tests. Compared with those with conclusive negative tests, individuals with inconclusive results more often underwent subsequent testing, had increased medical costs, and experienced worse outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.
Authors: Tessa S S Genders; Steffen E Petersen; Francesca Pugliese; Amardeep G Dastidar; Kirsten E Fleischmann; Koen Nieman; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Rui Wang; Matthias Renker; U Joseph Schoepf; Julian L Wichmann; Stephen R Fuller; Jeremy D Rier; Richard R Bayer; Daniel H Steinberg; Carlo N De Cecco; Stefan Baumann Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Stephan D Fihn; Julius M Gardin; Jonathan Abrams; Kathleen Berra; James C Blankenship; Apostolos P Dallas; Pamela S Douglas; Joanne M Foody; Thomas C Gerber; Alan L Hinderliter; Spencer B King; Paul D Kligfield; Harlan M Krumholz; Raymond Y K Kwong; Michael J Lim; Jane A Linderbaum; Michael J Mack; Mark A Munger; Richard L Prager; Joseph F Sabik; Leslee J Shaw; Joanna D Sikkema; Craig R Smith; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Sankey V Williams Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Salim S Virani; Alvaro Alonso; Emelia J Benjamin; Marcio S Bittencourt; Clifton W Callaway; April P Carson; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Francesca N Delling; Luc Djousse; Mitchell S V Elkind; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Sadiya S Khan; Brett M Kissela; Kristen L Knutson; Tak W Kwan; Daniel T Lackland; Tené T Lewis; Judith H Lichtman; Chris T Longenecker; Matthew Shane Loop; Pamela L Lutsey; Seth S Martin; Kunihiro Matsushita; Andrew E Moran; Michael E Mussolino; Amanda Marma Perak; Wayne D Rosamond; Gregory A Roth; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Emily B Schroeder; Svati H Shah; Christina M Shay; Nicole L Spartano; Andrew Stokes; David L Tirschwell; Lisa B VanWagner; Connie W Tsao Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Vikas Tandon; Devin Hall; Yeung Yam; Haliah Al-Shehri; Li Chen; Krystal Tandon; Rob S Beanlands; George A Wells; Terrence D Ruddy; Benjamin J W Chow Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-09-04 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Arend F L Schinkel; Abdou Elhendy; Ron T van Domburg; Jeroen J Bax; Jos R T C Roelandt; Don Poldermans Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Kevin Anstrom; Rowena J Dolor; Andrzej Kosinski; Mitchell W Krucoff; Daniel W Mudrick; Manesh R Patel; Michael H Picard; James E Udelson; Eric J Velazquez; Lawton Cooper Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 4.749