Key result
Initial CMR or CTA reduces invasive coronary angiography referrals up to ~34% versus routine care.
Why the study?
Patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin levels often undergo invasive coronary angiography despite many lacking obstructive coronary artery disease, necessitating evaluation of CMR or CTA as safe gatekeepers for ICA.
Does a CMR- or CTA-first strategy reduce referral to invasive coronary angiography in patients with NSTEMI compared to routine clinical care?
RCT (n=207)
Does a CMR- or CTA-first strategy reduce referral to invasive coronary angiography in patients with NSTEMI compared to routine clinical care?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An initial CMR- or CTA-first strategy safely reduces the need for invasive coronary angiography in patients with NSTEMI and elevated troponin.
BACKGROUND Patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin levels often routinely undergo invasive coronary angiography (ICA), but many do not have obstructive coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES This study investigated whether cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA) may serve as a safe gatekeeper for ICA. METHODS This randomized controlled trial (NCT01559467) in 207 patients (age 64 years; 62% male patients) with acute chest pain, elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels (>14 ng/l), and inconclusive electrocardiogram compared a CMR- or CTA-first strategy with a control strategy of routine clinical care. Follow-up ICA was recommended when initial CMR or CTA suggested myocardial ischemia, infarction, or obstructive coronary artery disease ($70% stenosis). Primary efficacy and secondary safety endpoints were referral to ICA during hospitalization and 1-year outcomes (major adverse cardiac events and complications), respectively. RESULTS The CMR- and CTA-first strategies reduced ICA compared with routine clinical care (87% [p = 0.001], 66% [p <0.001], and 100%, respectively), with similar outcome (hazard ratio: CMR vs. routine, 0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.37 to 1.61]; CTA vs. routine, 0.66 [95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 1.42]; and CMR vs. CTA, 1.19 [95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 2.66]). Obstructive coronary artery disease after ICA was found in 61% of patients in the routine clinical care arm, in 69% in the CMR-first arm (p = 0.308 vs. routine), and in 85% in the CTA-first arm (p = 0.006 vs. routine). In the non-CMR and non-CTA arms, follow-up CMR and CTA were performed in 67% and 13% of patients and led to a new diagnosis in 33% and 3%, respectively (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS A novel strategy of implementing CMR or CTA first in the diagnostic process in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is a safe gatekeeper for ICA. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;74:2466-77)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smulders et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n=207). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA) vs. Routine clinical care was evaluated on Referral to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) during hospitalization. A CMR- or CTA-first strategy reduced referral to invasive coronary angiography compared to routine care.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: