Key result
CCTA-guided management of stable chest pain reduced coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction compared with standard care alone (6.6% vs 8.2%; HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; p=0.044).
Why the study?
Although coronary CT angiography (CCTA)-guided management was shown to improve diagnosis, management, and outcomes in stable chest pain, whether these improvements are sustained long-term remained unclear.
Does standard of care plus coronary CT angiography reduce coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with suspected stable angina?
Population
4146 patients aged 18-75 years with suspected stable angina due to coronary heart disease
Comparison
Standard of care plus CCTA vs standard of care alone
Design
Open-label multicentre parallel-group randomised controlled trial
Follow-up
Median 10·0 years
Authors
Loading...
Supports CCTA-guided care for stable chest pain; extends short-term benefits to sustained 10-year outcomes.
RCT (n=4,146)
Open-label
1:1
Yes
Does standard of care plus coronary CT angiography reduce coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with suspected stable angina?
Hazard Ratio: 0.79 (95% CI 0.63–0.99)
Absolute Event Rate: 6.6% vs 8.2%
p-value: p=0.044
In patients with suspected stable angina, CCTA-guided management provides a sustained reduction in coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction over 10 years, likely driven by improved preventive therapy prescribing.
Williams et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Suspected stable angina due to coronary heart disease (n=4,146). Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) plus standard of care vs. Standard of care alone was evaluated on Coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, p=0.044). CCTA-guided management of stable chest pain reduced coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction compared with standard care alone (6.6% vs 8.2%; HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; p=0.044).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: