Cargando…

Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Trials showing equivalent or better outcomes with initial evaluation using coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) compared with stress testing in patients with stable chest pain have informed guidelines but raise questions about overtesting and excess catheterization. OBJECTIVE:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Douglas, Pamela S., Nanna, Michael G., Kelsey, Michelle D., Yow, Eric, Mark, Daniel B., Patel, Manesh R., Rogers, Campbell, Udelson, James E., Fordyce, Christopher B., Curzen, Nick, Pontone, Gianluca, Maurovich-Horvat, Pál, De Bruyne, Bernard, Greenwood, John P., Marinescu, Victor, Leipsic, Jonathon, Stone, Gregg W., Ben-Yehuda, Ori, Berry, Colin, Hogan, Shea E., Redfors, Bjorn, Ali, Ziad A., Byrne, Robert A., Kramer, Christopher M., Yeh, Robert W., Martinez, Beth, Mullen, Sarah, Huey, Whitney, Anstrom, Kevin J., Al-Khalidi, Hussein R., Vemulapalli, Sreekanth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Medical Association 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10448364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37610731
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2023.2595
_version_ 1785094718734991360
author Douglas, Pamela S.
Nanna, Michael G.
Kelsey, Michelle D.
Yow, Eric
Mark, Daniel B.
Patel, Manesh R.
Rogers, Campbell
Udelson, James E.
Fordyce, Christopher B.
Curzen, Nick
Pontone, Gianluca
Maurovich-Horvat, Pál
De Bruyne, Bernard
Greenwood, John P.
Marinescu, Victor
Leipsic, Jonathon
Stone, Gregg W.
Ben-Yehuda, Ori
Berry, Colin
Hogan, Shea E.
Redfors, Bjorn
Ali, Ziad A.
Byrne, Robert A.
Kramer, Christopher M.
Yeh, Robert W.
Martinez, Beth
Mullen, Sarah
Huey, Whitney
Anstrom, Kevin J.
Al-Khalidi, Hussein R.
Vemulapalli, Sreekanth
author_facet Douglas, Pamela S.
Nanna, Michael G.
Kelsey, Michelle D.
Yow, Eric
Mark, Daniel B.
Patel, Manesh R.
Rogers, Campbell
Udelson, James E.
Fordyce, Christopher B.
Curzen, Nick
Pontone, Gianluca
Maurovich-Horvat, Pál
De Bruyne, Bernard
Greenwood, John P.
Marinescu, Victor
Leipsic, Jonathon
Stone, Gregg W.
Ben-Yehuda, Ori
Berry, Colin
Hogan, Shea E.
Redfors, Bjorn
Ali, Ziad A.
Byrne, Robert A.
Kramer, Christopher M.
Yeh, Robert W.
Martinez, Beth
Mullen, Sarah
Huey, Whitney
Anstrom, Kevin J.
Al-Khalidi, Hussein R.
Vemulapalli, Sreekanth
author_sort Douglas, Pamela S.
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: Trials showing equivalent or better outcomes with initial evaluation using coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) compared with stress testing in patients with stable chest pain have informed guidelines but raise questions about overtesting and excess catheterization. OBJECTIVE: To test a modified initial cCTA strategy designed to improve clinical efficiency vs usual testing (UT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a pragmatic randomized clinical trial enrolling participants from December 3, 2018, to May 18, 2021, with a median of 11.8 months of follow-up. Patients from 65 North American and European sites with stable symptoms of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and no prior testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to precision strategy (PS) or UT. INTERVENTIONS: PS incorporated the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) minimal risk score to quantitatively select minimal-risk participants for deferred testing, assigning all others to cCTA with selective CT-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT). UT included site-selected stress testing or catheterization. Site clinicians determined subsequent care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were clinical efficiency (invasive catheterization without obstructive CAD) and safety (death or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) combined into a composite primary end point. Secondary end points included safety components of the primary outcome and medication use. RESULTS: A total of 2103 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [11.5] years; 1056 male [50.2%]) were included in the study, and 422 [20.1%] were classified as minimal risk. The primary end point occurred in 44 of 1057 participants (4.2%) in the PS group and in 118 of 1046 participants (11.3%) in the UT group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50). Clinical efficiency was higher with PS, with lower rates of catheterization without obstructive disease (27 [2.6%]) vs UT participants (107 [10.2%]; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36). The safety composite of death/MI was similar (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.73-3.15). Death occurred in 5 individuals (0.5%) in the PS group vs 7 (0.7%) in the UT group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23-2.23), and nonfatal MI occurred in 13 individuals (1.2%) in the PS group vs 5 (0.5%) in the UT group (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 0.96-7.36). Use of lipid-lowering (450 of 900 [50.0%] vs 365 of 873 [41.8%]) and antiplatelet (321 of 900 [35.7%] vs 237 of 873 [27.1%]) medications at 1 year was higher in the PS group compared with the UT group (both P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An initial diagnostic approach to stable chest pain starting with quantitative risk stratification and deferred testing for minimal-risk patients and cCTA with selective FFR-CT in all others increased clinical efficiency relative to UT at 1 year. Additional randomized clinical trials are needed to verify these findings, including safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10448364
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher American Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104483642023-08-25 Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial Douglas, Pamela S. Nanna, Michael G. Kelsey, Michelle D. Yow, Eric Mark, Daniel B. Patel, Manesh R. Rogers, Campbell Udelson, James E. Fordyce, Christopher B. Curzen, Nick Pontone, Gianluca Maurovich-Horvat, Pál De Bruyne, Bernard Greenwood, John P. Marinescu, Victor Leipsic, Jonathon Stone, Gregg W. Ben-Yehuda, Ori Berry, Colin Hogan, Shea E. Redfors, Bjorn Ali, Ziad A. Byrne, Robert A. Kramer, Christopher M. Yeh, Robert W. Martinez, Beth Mullen, Sarah Huey, Whitney Anstrom, Kevin J. Al-Khalidi, Hussein R. Vemulapalli, Sreekanth JAMA Cardiol Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: Trials showing equivalent or better outcomes with initial evaluation using coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) compared with stress testing in patients with stable chest pain have informed guidelines but raise questions about overtesting and excess catheterization. OBJECTIVE: To test a modified initial cCTA strategy designed to improve clinical efficiency vs usual testing (UT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a pragmatic randomized clinical trial enrolling participants from December 3, 2018, to May 18, 2021, with a median of 11.8 months of follow-up. Patients from 65 North American and European sites with stable symptoms of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and no prior testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to precision strategy (PS) or UT. INTERVENTIONS: PS incorporated the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) minimal risk score to quantitatively select minimal-risk participants for deferred testing, assigning all others to cCTA with selective CT-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT). UT included site-selected stress testing or catheterization. Site clinicians determined subsequent care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were clinical efficiency (invasive catheterization without obstructive CAD) and safety (death or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) combined into a composite primary end point. Secondary end points included safety components of the primary outcome and medication use. RESULTS: A total of 2103 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [11.5] years; 1056 male [50.2%]) were included in the study, and 422 [20.1%] were classified as minimal risk. The primary end point occurred in 44 of 1057 participants (4.2%) in the PS group and in 118 of 1046 participants (11.3%) in the UT group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50). Clinical efficiency was higher with PS, with lower rates of catheterization without obstructive disease (27 [2.6%]) vs UT participants (107 [10.2%]; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36). The safety composite of death/MI was similar (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.73-3.15). Death occurred in 5 individuals (0.5%) in the PS group vs 7 (0.7%) in the UT group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23-2.23), and nonfatal MI occurred in 13 individuals (1.2%) in the PS group vs 5 (0.5%) in the UT group (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 0.96-7.36). Use of lipid-lowering (450 of 900 [50.0%] vs 365 of 873 [41.8%]) and antiplatelet (321 of 900 [35.7%] vs 237 of 873 [27.1%]) medications at 1 year was higher in the PS group compared with the UT group (both P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An initial diagnostic approach to stable chest pain starting with quantitative risk stratification and deferred testing for minimal-risk patients and cCTA with selective FFR-CT in all others increased clinical efficiency relative to UT at 1 year. Additional randomized clinical trials are needed to verify these findings, including safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244 American Medical Association 2023-08-23 2023-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10448364/ /pubmed/37610731 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2023.2595 Text en Copyright 2023 Douglas PS et al. JAMA Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Douglas, Pamela S.
Nanna, Michael G.
Kelsey, Michelle D.
Yow, Eric
Mark, Daniel B.
Patel, Manesh R.
Rogers, Campbell
Udelson, James E.
Fordyce, Christopher B.
Curzen, Nick
Pontone, Gianluca
Maurovich-Horvat, Pál
De Bruyne, Bernard
Greenwood, John P.
Marinescu, Victor
Leipsic, Jonathon
Stone, Gregg W.
Ben-Yehuda, Ori
Berry, Colin
Hogan, Shea E.
Redfors, Bjorn
Ali, Ziad A.
Byrne, Robert A.
Kramer, Christopher M.
Yeh, Robert W.
Martinez, Beth
Mullen, Sarah
Huey, Whitney
Anstrom, Kevin J.
Al-Khalidi, Hussein R.
Vemulapalli, Sreekanth
Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial
title Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial
title_short Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial
title_sort comparison of an initial risk-based testing strategy vs usual testing in stable symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease: the precise randomized clinical trial
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10448364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37610731
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2023.2595
work_keys_str_mv AT douglaspamelas comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT nannamichaelg comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT kelseymichelled comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT yoweric comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT markdanielb comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT patelmaneshr comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT rogerscampbell comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT udelsonjamese comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT fordycechristopherb comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT curzennick comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT pontonegianluca comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT maurovichhorvatpal comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT debruynebernard comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT greenwoodjohnp comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT marinescuvictor comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT leipsicjonathon comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT stonegreggw comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT benyehudaori comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT berrycolin comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT hogansheae comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT redforsbjorn comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT aliziada comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT byrneroberta comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT kramerchristopherm comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT yehrobertw comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT martinezbeth comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT mullensarah comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT hueywhitney comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT anstromkevinj comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT alkhalidihusseinr comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial
AT vemulapallisreekanth comparisonofaninitialriskbasedtestingstrategyvsusualtestinginstablesymptomaticpatientswithsuspectedcoronaryarterydiseasethepreciserandomizedclinicaltrial