Background

Efficiency of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) in clinical practice depends on precise reporting and accurate result interpretation.

Objective

We sought to assess referring clinicians' understanding of patients' coronary artery disease (CAD) severity and to compare satisfactions of the free-form impression (FFI) with satisfactions of the structured impression (SI) section of CCTA reports.

Materials and methods

Fifty clinical CCTA reports from May 2011 to April 2012 were retrospectively selected (25 FFI and 25 SI), to include cases with the entire spectrum of CAD (6 categories encompassing normal, minimal, mild, moderate, severe stenosis, and occlusion). A survey containing only randomized blinded impressions was distributed to 4 cardiologists and 2 cardiac imaging specialists. Clinician interpretation was examined regarding (Q1) worst stenosis severity, (Q2) number of vessels with significant stenosis, and (Q3) the presence of nonevaluable segments. Agreement proportions and Cohen's kappa were evaluated between FFI versus SI. Satisfactions were measured with respect to content, clarity, and clinical effectiveness.

Results

Q1 agreement was excellent for both FFI and SI (by 6 categories: 80% versus 85%; P > .05; kappa: 0.87 versus 0.89; by no CAD versus nonsignificant versus significant CAD: 99% versus 97%; P > .05; kappa: 0.99 versus 0.94). Q2 agreement improved from fair to moderate (53% versus 68%; P = .04; kappa 0.31 versus 0.52). Q3 agreement was moderate (90% versus 87%; P > .05; kappa 0.57 versus 0.58). Satisfactions with impressions were high and similar for FFI and SI for clinicians.

Conclusion

Structured impressions were shown to improve result interpretation agreement from fair to moderate with regard to the number of vessels with significant stenosis.

Background

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is an established predictor of future major adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in asymptomatic individuals. However, limited data exist as to how CAC compares with functional testing (FT) in estimating prognosis in symptomatic patients.

Methods

In the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain), patients with stable chest pain (or dyspnea) and intermediate pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease were randomized to FT (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress, or stress echocardiography) or anatomic testing. We evaluated those who underwent CAC testing as part of the anatomic evaluation (n=4209) and compared that with results of FT (n=4602). We stratified CAC and FT results as normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal (for CAC: 0, 1-99 Agatston score [AS], 100-400 AS, and >400 AS, respectively; for FT: normal, mild=late positive treadmill, moderate=early positive treadmill or single-vessel ischemia, and severe=large ischemic region abnormality). The primary end point was all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalization over a median follow-up of 26.1 months. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and C statistics to determine predictive and discriminatory values.

Results

Overall, the distribution of normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal test results was significantly different between FT and CAC (FT: normal, n=3588 [78.0%]; mild, n=432 [9.4%]; moderate, n=217 [4.7%]; severe, n=365 [7.9%]; CAC: normal, n=1457 [34.6%]; mild, n=1340 [31.8%]; moderate, n=772 [18.3%]; severe, n=640 [15.2%]; P<0.0001). Moderate and severe abnormalities in both arms robustly predicted events (moderate: CAC: HR, 3.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-5.44; and FT: HR, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.83; severe: CAC: HR, 3.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-6.36; and FT: HR, 3.88; 95% confidence interval, 2.58-5.85). In the CAC arm, the majority of events (n=112 of 133, 84%) occurred in patients with any positive CAC test (score >0), whereas fewer than half of events occurred in patients with mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal FT (n=57 of 132, 43%; P<0.001). In contrast, any abnormality on FT was significantly more specific for predicting events (78.6% for FT versus 35.2% for CAC; P<0.001). Overall discriminatory ability in predicting the primary end point of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unstable angina hospitalization was similar and fair for both CAC and FT (C statistic, 0.67 versus 0.64). Coronary computed tomographic angiography provided significantly better prognostic information compared with FT and CAC testing (C index, 0.72).

Conclusions

Among stable outpatients presenting with suspected coronary artery disease, most patients experiencing clinical events have measurable CAC at baseline, and fewer than half have any abnormalities on FT. However, an abnormal FT was more specific for cardiovascular events, leading to overall similarly modest discriminatory abilities of both tests.

Clinical trial registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Objective

We sought to identify sub-groups of "low-risk" HEART score patients (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) at elevated risk of acute myocardial infarction or death within 30 days.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of prospective emergency department (ED) encounters for suspected acute coronary syndrome in a large health system with low-risk HEART scores (0-5 points). Logistic regression using the 5 components of the HEART score analyzed the increase risk attributable to points from each of the 5 score components.

Results

Of 30,971 encounters among 28,992 unique patients, 135 (0.44%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37-0.51) experienced acute myocardial infarction or death. Risk increased for each component of the HEART score from 0 to 1 to 2 points (history, 0.4% to 0.5% to 0.6%; ECG, 0.3% to 0.7% to 0.7%; age, 0.2% to 0.3% to 0.7%; risk factors, 0.1% to 0.4% to 0.8%), except troponin, which had the highest risk with 1 point (troponin, 0.4% to 2.7% to 0.9%). Odds ratios from our regression, which adjusts for other components, showed a similar pattern (from 1 vs 0 and 2 vs 0 points, respectively: history, 1.0 and 1.8; ECG, 2.2 and 3.5; age, 1.2 and 2.1; risk factors, 2.4 and 4.2; and troponin, 6.0 and 3.6).

Conclusion

Among "low-risk" suspected acute coronary syndrome encounters, increasing points within each of the 5 categories demonstrated small increases in risk of death or acute myocardial infarction, with the troponin and ECG components representing the largest risk increases.

Arterial claudication is a common manifestation of peripheral artery disease. This document focuses on necessary imaging before revascularization for claudication. Appropriate use of ultrasound, invasive arteriography, MR angiography, and CT angiography are discussed. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Study objective

We compare clinical management and outcomes of emergency department (ED) encounters by sex after implementation of a clinical care pathway in 15 community EDs that standardized recommendations based on patient risk, using the History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of adult ED encounters evaluated for suspected acute coronary syndrome with a documented HEART score from May 20, 2016, to December 1, 2017. The primary outcomes were hospitalization or 30-day stress testing. Secondary outcomes included 30-day acute myocardial infarction or all-cause death (major adverse cardiac event). A generalized estimating equation regression model was used to compare the odds of hospitalization or stress testing by sex; we report HEART scores (0 to 10) stratified by sex and describing major adverse cardiac events.

Results

A total of 34,715 adult ED encounters met the inclusion criteria (56.0% women). A higher proportion of women were classified as low risk (60.5% versus 52.4%; odds ratio [OR] 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33 to 1.45). Women were hospitalized or received stress testing less frequently than men for low HEART scores (18.8% versus 22.8%; OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.84) and intermediate ones (46.7% versus 49.7%; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95), but similarly for high-risk ones (74.1% versus 74.4%; OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28). Women had 18% lower odds of hospitalization or noninvasive cardiac testing (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86), even after adjusting for HEART score and comorbidities. Men had higher risks of major adverse cardiac events than women for all HEART score categories but the risk for men was significantly higher among low-risk HEART scores (0.4% versus 0.1%).

Conclusion

Women with low-risk HEART scores are hospitalized or stress tested less than men, which is likely appropriate, and women have better outcomes than men. Use of the HEART score has the potential to reduce sex disparities in acute coronary syndrome care.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) to traditional stenosis categories and the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) for predicting cardiovascular events in patients with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD).

Background

The 2016 CAD-RADS has been established to standardize the reporting of CAD on coronary CT angiography (CTA).

Methods

PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial participants' CTAs were assessed by a central CT core laboratory for CACS, traditional stenosis-based categories, and modified CAD-RADS grade including high-risk coronary plaque (HRP) features. Traditional stenosis categories and CAD-RADS grade were compared for the prediction of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina over a median follow-up of 25 months. Incremental prognostic value over traditional risk factors and CACS was assessed.

Results

In 3,840 eligible patients (mean age: 60.4 ± 8.2 years; 49% men), 3.0% (115) experienced events. CAD-RADS (concordance statistic [C-statistic] 0.747) had significantly higher discriminatory value than traditional stenosis-based assessments (C-statistic 0.698 to 0.717; all p for comparison ≤0.001). With no plaque (CAD-RADS 0) as the baseline, the hazard ratio (HR) for an event increased from 2.43 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 5.08) for CAD-RADS 1 to 21.84 (95% CI: 8.63 to 55.26) for CAD-RADS 4b and 5. In stepwise nested models, CAD-RADS added incremental prognostic value beyond ASCVD risk score and CACS (C-statistic 0.776 vs. 0.682; p < 0.001), and added incremental value persisted in all CACS strata.

Conclusions

These data from a large representative contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary CTA for stable chest pain support the prognostic value of CAD-RADS as a standard reporting system for coronary CTA.

Background

Optimal management of patients with stable chest pain relies on the prognostic information provided by noninvasive cardiovascular testing, but there are limited data from randomized trials comparing anatomic with functional testing.

Methods

In the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain), patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) were randomly assigned to functional testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress, or stress echocardiography) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). Site-based diagnostic test reports were classified as normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal. The primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalizations over a median follow-up of 26.1 months.

Results

Both the prevalence of normal test results and incidence rate of events in these patients were significantly lower among 4500 patients randomly assigned to CTA in comparison with 4602 patients randomly assigned to functional testing (33.4% versus 78.0%, and 0.9% versus 2.1%, respectively; both P<0.001). In CTA, 54.0% of events (n=74/137) occurred in patients with nonobstructive CAD (1%-69% stenosis). Prevalence of obstructive CAD and myocardial ischemia was low (11.9% versus 12.7%, respectively), with both findings having similar prognostic value (hazard ratio, 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.60-5.39; and 3.47; 95% CI, 2.42-4.99). When test findings were stratified as mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal, hazard ratios for events in comparison with normal tests increased proportionally for CTA (2.94, 7.67, 10.13; all P<0.001) but not for corresponding functional testing categories (0.94 [P=0.87], 2.65 [P=0.001], 3.88 [P<0.001]). The discriminatory ability of CTA in predicting events was significantly better than functional testing (c-index, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68-0.76 versus 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.69; P=0.04). If 2714 patients with at least an intermediate Framingham Risk Score (>10%) who had a normal functional test were reclassified as being mildly abnormal, the discriminatory capacity improved to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.74).

Conclusions

Coronary CTA, by identifying patients at risk because of nonobstructive CAD, provides better prognostic information than functional testing in contemporary patients who have stable chest pain with a low burden of obstructive CAD, myocardial ischemia, and events.

Clinical trial registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01174550.