Objectives: This study compared the safety and diagnostic yield of a selective referral strategy using coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) compared with a direct referral strategy using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the index procedure. Background: Among patients presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD), a sizeable proportion who are referred to ICA do not have a significant, obstructive stenosis. Methods: In a multinational, randomized clinical trial of patients referred to ICA for nonemergent indications, a selective referral strategy was compared with a direct referral strategy. The primary endpoint was noninferiority with a multiplicative margin of 1.33 of composite major adverse cardiovascular events (blindly adjudicated death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, urgent and/or emergent coronary revascularization or cardiac hospitalization) at a median follow-up of 1-year. Results: At 22 sites, 823 subjects were randomized to a selective referral and 808 to a direct referral strategy. At 1 year, selective referral met the noninferiority margin of 1.33 (p = 0.026) with a similar event rate between the randomized arms of the trial (4.6% vs. 4.6%; hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.47). Following CCTA, only 23% of the selective referral arm went on to ICA, which was a rate lower than that of the direct referral strategy. Coronary revascularization occurred less often in the selective referral group compared with the direct referral to ICA (13% vs. 18%; p < 0.001). Rates of normal ICA were 24.6% in the selective referral arm compared with 61.1% in the direct referral arm of the trial (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In stable patients with suspected CAD who are eligible for ICA, the comparable 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events rates following a selective referral and direct referral strategy suggests that both diagnostic approaches are similarly effective. In the selective referral strategy, the reduced use of ICA was associated with a greater diagnostic yield, which supported the usefulness of CCTA as an efficient and accurate method to guide decisions of ICA performance. (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Selective Cardiac Catheterization [CONSERVE]; NCT01810198)

Selective Referral Using CCTA Versus Direct Referral for Individuals Referred to Invasive Coronary Angiography for Suspected CAD : a Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label Trial / H.J. Chang, F.Y. Lin, D. Gebow, H.Y. An, D. Andreini, R. Bathina, A. Baggiano, V. Beltrama, R. Cerci, E.Y. Choi, J.H. Choi, S.Y. Choi, N. Chung, J. Cole, J.H. Doh, S.J. Ha, A.Y. Her, C. Kepka, J.Y. Kim, J.W. Kim, S.-. Kim, W. Kim, G. Pontone, U. Valeti, T.C. Villines, Y. Lu, A. Kumar, I. Cho, I. Danad, D. Han, R. Heo, S.-. Lee, J.H. Lee, H.-. Park, J.M. Sung, D. Leflang, J. Zullo, L.J. Shaw, J.K. Min. - In: JACC. CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING. - ISSN 1936-878X. - 12:7(2019 Jul), pp. 1303-1312.

Selective Referral Using CCTA Versus Direct Referral for Individuals Referred to Invasive Coronary Angiography for Suspected CAD : a Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label Trial

D. Andreini;A. Baggiano;V. Beltrama;G. Pontone;
2019

Abstract

Objectives: This study compared the safety and diagnostic yield of a selective referral strategy using coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) compared with a direct referral strategy using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the index procedure. Background: Among patients presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD), a sizeable proportion who are referred to ICA do not have a significant, obstructive stenosis. Methods: In a multinational, randomized clinical trial of patients referred to ICA for nonemergent indications, a selective referral strategy was compared with a direct referral strategy. The primary endpoint was noninferiority with a multiplicative margin of 1.33 of composite major adverse cardiovascular events (blindly adjudicated death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, urgent and/or emergent coronary revascularization or cardiac hospitalization) at a median follow-up of 1-year. Results: At 22 sites, 823 subjects were randomized to a selective referral and 808 to a direct referral strategy. At 1 year, selective referral met the noninferiority margin of 1.33 (p = 0.026) with a similar event rate between the randomized arms of the trial (4.6% vs. 4.6%; hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.47). Following CCTA, only 23% of the selective referral arm went on to ICA, which was a rate lower than that of the direct referral strategy. Coronary revascularization occurred less often in the selective referral group compared with the direct referral to ICA (13% vs. 18%; p < 0.001). Rates of normal ICA were 24.6% in the selective referral arm compared with 61.1% in the direct referral arm of the trial (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In stable patients with suspected CAD who are eligible for ICA, the comparable 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events rates following a selective referral and direct referral strategy suggests that both diagnostic approaches are similarly effective. In the selective referral strategy, the reduced use of ICA was associated with a greater diagnostic yield, which supported the usefulness of CCTA as an efficient and accurate method to guide decisions of ICA performance. (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Selective Cardiac Catheterization [CONSERVE]; NCT01810198)
coronary computed tomographic angiography; invasive coronary angiography; major adverse cardiac events; stable ischemic heart disease; Aged; Asia; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Artery Disease; Europe; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; North America; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Time Factors; Computed Tomography Angiography; Referral and Consultation
Settore MED/11 - Malattie dell'Apparato Cardiovascolare
Settore MED/36 - Diagnostica per Immagini e Radioterapia
lug-2019
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Selective referral.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 626.45 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
626.45 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/723340
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 16
  • Scopus 117
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 106
social impact