Noninvasive Cardiac Testing vs Clinical Evaluation Alone in Acute Chest Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the ROMICAT-II Randomized Clinical Trial | Acute Coronary Syndromes | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.150.57. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Anderson  JL, Adams  CD, Antman  EM,  et al; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction); American College of Emergency Physicians; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.  ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(7):e1-e157.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Owens  PL, Barrett  ML, Gibson  TB, Andrews  RM, Weinick  RM, Mutter  RL.  Emergency department care in the United States: a profile of national data sources.  Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(2):150-165.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Pope  JH, Aufderheide  TP, Ruthazer  R,  et al.  Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department.  N Engl J Med. 2000;342(16):1163-1170.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Katz  DA, Williams  GC, Brown  RL,  et al.  Emergency physicians’ fear of malpractice in evaluating patients with possible acute cardiac ischemia.  Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(6):525-533.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Kline  JA, Jones  AE, Shapiro  NI,  et al.  Multicenter, randomized trial of quantitative pretest probability to reduce unnecessary medical radiation exposure in emergency department patients with chest pain and dyspnea.  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(1):66-73.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Studdert  DM, Mello  MM, Sage  WM,  et al.  Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment.  JAMA. 2005;293(21):2609-2617.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Budoff  MJ, Dowe  D, Jollis  JG,  et al.  Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(21):1724-1732.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Miller  JM, Rochitte  CE, Dewey  M,  et al.  Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT.  N Engl J Med. 2008;359(22):2324-2336.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Meijboom  WB, Meijs  MF, Schuijf  JD,  et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(25):2135-2144.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Hoffmann  U, Truong  QA, Schoenfeld  DA,  et al; ROMICAT-II Investigators.  Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain.  N Engl J Med. 2012;367(4):299-308.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Hoffmann  U, Bamberg  F, Chae  CU,  et al.  Coronary computed tomography angiography for early triage of patients with acute chest pain: the ROMICAT (Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computer Assisted Tomography) trial.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(18):1642-1650.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Goldstein  JA, Chinnaiyan  KM, Abidov  A,  et al; CT-STAT Investigators.  The CT-STAT (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Systematic Triage of Acute Chest Pain Patients to Treatment) trial.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(14):1414-1422.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Hoffmann  U, Truong  QA, Fleg  JL,  et al; ROMICAT II.  Design of the Rule Out Myocardial Ischemia/Infarction Using Computer Assisted Tomography: a multicenter randomized comparative effectiveness trial of cardiac computed tomography versus alternative triage strategies in patients with acute chest pain in the emergency department.  Am Heart J. 2012;163(3):330-338, 338.e1.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Gerber  TC, Carr  JJ, Arai  AE,  et al.  Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.  Circulation. 2009;119(7):1056-1065.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Robins  JM. Marginal structural models. 1997 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Bayesian Statistical Science. Alexandria, VA: ASA; 1998:1-10.
16.
Robins  JM. Marginal structural models versus structural nested models as tools for causal inference. In: Halloran  ME, Berry  D, eds.  Statistical Models in Epidemiology, the Environment, and Clinical Trials. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1999:95-134.
17.
Robins  JM, Hernán  MA, Brumback  B.  Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology.  Epidemiology. 2000;11(5):550-560.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Lumley  T, Scott  AJ. Two-sample rank tests under complex sampling. Technical Report 2012-4. Auckland, New Zealand: Department of Statistics, University of Auckland; 2012.
19.
Roffi  M, Patrono  C, Collet  JP,  et al; Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting Without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology.  2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).  Eur Heart J. 2016;37(3):267-315.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.  Unstable Angina and NSTEMI: Early Management (CG94). London, England: NICE; 2010.
21.
Foy  AJ, Liu  G, Davidson  WR  Jr, Sciamanna  C, Leslie  DL.  Comparative effectiveness of diagnostic testing strategies in emergency department patients with chest pain: an analysis of downstream testing, interventions, and outcomes.  JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(3):428-436.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Prasad  V, Cheung  M, Cifu  A.  Chest pain in the emergency department: the case against our current practice of routine noninvasive testing.  Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(19):1506-1509.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Chapman  AR, Anand  A, Boeddinghaus  J,  et al.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety of early rule-out pathways for acute myocardial infarction.  Circulation. 2017;135(17):1586-1596.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Boeddinghaus  J, Nestelberger  T, Twerenbold  R,  et al.  Direct comparison of 4 very early rule-out strategies for acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin i.  Circulation. 2017;135(17):1597-1611.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Morrow  DA.  Clinician’s guide to early rule-out strategies with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.  Circulation. 2017;135(17):1612-1616.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Mahler  SA, Riley  RF, Hiestand  BC,  et al.  The HEART Pathway randomized trial: identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge.  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(2):195-203.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Redberg  RF.  Coronary CT angiography for acute chest pain.  N Engl J Med. 2012;367(4):375-376.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Riley  RF, Miller  CD, Russell  GB,  et al.  Cost analysis of the History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin (HEART) Pathway randomized control trial.  Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(1):77-81.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Hausleiter  J, Meyer  T, Hermann  F,  et al.  Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography.  JAMA. 2009;301(5):500-507.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Einstein  AJ, Henzlova  MJ, Rajagopalan  S.  Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography.  JAMA. 2007;298(3):317-323.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Woodard  PK, McWilliams  SR, Raptis  DA,  et al.  R-SCAN: cardiac CT angiography for acute chest pain.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(9):1212-1214.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Taylor  AJ, Cerqueira  M, Hodgson  JM,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; American College of Radiology; American Heart Association; American Society of Echocardiography; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.  ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(22):1864-1894.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
Less Is More
February 2018

Noninvasive Cardiac Testing vs Clinical Evaluation Alone in Acute Chest Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the ROMICAT-II Randomized Clinical Trial

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
  • 2Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(2):212-219. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7360
Key Points

Question  Does clinical evaluation and noninvasive cardiac testing improve outcomes in patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute chest pain compared with clinical evaluation alone?

Findings  In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, patients who underwent clinical evaluation without noninvasive testing had a shorter length of stay, less diagnostic testing, lower cumulative radiation exposure, and reduced cost; there was no difference in missed diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes, development of major adverse cardiac events, and return ED visits.

Meaning  Noninvasive testing to rule out acute coronary syndromes in low- and intermediate-risk patients who present to the ED with chest pain seems to provide no clinical benefit over clinical evaluation alone.

Abstract

Importance  The incremental benefit of noninvasive testing in addition to clinical evaluation (history, physical examination, an electrocardiogram [ECG], and biomarker assessment) vs clinical evaluation alone for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute chest pain is unknown.

Objective  To examine differences in outcomes with clinical evaluation and noninvasive testing (coronary computed tomographic angiography [CCTA] or stress testing) vs clinical evaluation alone.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the randomized multicenter Rule Out Myocardial Ischemia/Infarction by Computer Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT-II) trial. Data for 1000 patients who presented with chest pain to the EDs at 9 hospitals in the United States were evaluated.

Interventions  Clinical evaluation plus noninvasive testing (CCTA or stress test) vs clinical evaluation alone.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Primary outcome was length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included hospital admission, direct ED discharge, downstream testing, rates of invasive coronary angiography, revascularization, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), repeated ED visit or hospitalization for recurrent chest pain at 28 days, and cost. Safety end points were missed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and cumulative radiation exposure during the index visit and follow-up period.

Results  Of the 1000 patients randomized, 118 patients (12%) (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [7.8]; 49 [42%] were female) did not undergo noninvasive testing, whereas 882 (88%) (mean [SD] age, 54.4 [8.14] years; 419 [48%] were female) received CCTA or stress testing. There was no difference in baseline characteristics or clinical presentation between groups. Patients who underwent clinical evaluation alone experienced a shorter LOS (20.3 vs 27.9 hours; P < .001), lower rates of diagnostic testing (P < .001) and angiography (2% vs 11%; P < .001), lower median costs ($2261.50 vs $2584.30; P = .009), and less cumulative radiation exposure (0 vs 9.9 mSv; P < .001) during the 28-day study period. Lack of testing was associated with a lower rate of diagnosis of ACS (0% vs 9%; P < .001) and less coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the index visit (0% vs 10%; P < .001, and 0% vs 4%; P = .02, respectively). There was no difference in rates of PCI (2% vs 5%; P = .15), coronary artery bypass surgery (0% vs 1%; P = .61), return ED visits (5.8% vs 2.8%; P = .08), or MACE (2% vs 1%; P = .24) in the 28-day follow-up period.

Conclusions and Relevance  In patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain, negative biomarkers, and a nonischemic ECG result, noninvasive testing with CCTA or stress testing leads to longer LOS, more downstream testing, more radiation exposure, and greater cost without an improvement in clinical outcomes.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01084239

×