Why the study?
In the PRECISE trial, a precision diagnostic strategy reduced composite clinical events compared with usual testing in nonacute chest pain, but medical costs remained to be evaluated as a prespecified secondary end point.
Does a precision diagnostic strategy reduce total medical costs compared to usual testing in patients with stable chest pain?
Does a precision diagnostic strategy reduce total medical costs compared to usual testing in patients with stable chest pain?
A precision diagnostic strategy using CCTA and selective CT-FFR for stable chest pain has similar total medical costs at 1 year compared to usual testing, despite increasing revascularization costs.
Precision strategy yields similar 1-year costs to usual testing; confirms economic equivalence in stable chest pain.
BACKGROUND: The PRECISE (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization) demonstrated that a precision diagnostic strategy reduced the primary composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or catheterization without obstructive coronary artery disease by 65% in patients with nonacute chest pain compared with usual testing. Medical cost was a prespecified secondary end point. METHODS: PRECISE randomized 2103 patients between December 2018 and May 2021 to usual testing or a precision strategy that used deferred testing for the lowest risk patients (20%) and coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve for the remainder. Resource use consumption data were collected from all study participants and hospital cost data from US participants (n=1125) to estimate total medical costs. The primary and secondary economic outcomes were total costs at 12 months and at 45 days, respectively, from the US health care system perspective. The mean cost differences between the 2 strategies were reported by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 45 days, total costs were similar between the precision strategy and usual testing (mean difference, $182 [95% CI, −$555 to $661]). By 12 months, percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery had been performed in 7.2% and 2.0% of precision strategy patients and 3.5% and 1.7% of usual testing patients, respectively. At 1 year, precision strategy costs were $5299 versus $4821 for usual testing (mean difference, $478 [95% CI, −$889 to $1437]; P =0.43). Precision care decreased mean per-patient diagnostic cost by 27% and increased mean per-patient revascularization costs by 67%. CONCLUSIONS: In the PRECISE trial, the precision strategy, a risk-based approach endorsed by current clinical practice guidelines, improved the clinical efficiency of testing and had similar costs to usual testing at 45 days and a nonsignificant $478 cost difference at 1 year. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03702244.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chew et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: