Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy and one year prognosis of whole chest, "multiple rule out" CT for coronary artery disease (CAD) in Emergency Department patients., Methods and Findings: One hundred and two Emergency Department patients at low to intermediate risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), pulmonary embolism and/or acute aortic syndrome underwent a research 64 channel ECG-gated, whole chest CT and a standard of care evaluation. Patients were classified with obstructive CAD with either a coronary CT stenosis greater than 50% or a non-evaluable coronary segment. SOC and 3 month follow up data were used to determine an adjudicated clinical diagnosis. The diagnostic ability of obstructive CAD on CT to identify clinical diagnoses was determined. Patients were followed up for 1 year for cardiac events. Seven (7%) patients were diagnosed with ACS. CT sensitivity to detect obstructive CAD in ACS patients was 100% (95% CI 65%, 100%), negative predictive value 100% (96%, 100%), specificity 88% (80%, 94%), and positive predictive value 39% (17%, 64%). Pulmonary embolism and acute aortic syndrome were not identified in any patients. No cardiac events occurred in patients without obstructive CAD over 1 year., Conclusions: Whole chest CT has high sensitivity and negative predictive value for ACS with excellent one year prognosis in patients without obstructive CAD on CT. The frequency of pulmonary embolism or acute aortic syndrome and the higher radiation dose suggest whole chest CT should be limited to select patients. ClinicalTrials.org #: NCT00855231.

Rationale and Objectives: Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) in the emergency department may be cost saving for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but economic outcome data are limited. The objective of this study was to compare the cost of CCT-based evaluation versus standard of care (SOC) using the results of a clinical trial., Materials and Methods: We developed a decision analytic cost-minimization model to compare CCT-based and SOC evaluation costs to obtain a correct diagnosis. Model inputs, including Medicare-adjusted patient costs, were primarily obtained from a cohort study of 102 patients at low to intermediate risk for ACS who underwent an emergency department SOC clinical evaluation and a 64-channel CCT. SOC costs included stress testing in 77% of patients. Data from published literature completed the model inputs and expanded data ranges for sensitivity analyses., Results: Modeled mean patient costs for CCT-based evaluation were $750 (24%) lower than the SOC ($2384 and $3134, respectively). Sensitivity analyses indicated that CCT was less expensive over a wide range of estimates and was only more expensive with a CCT specificity below 67% or if more than 44% of very low risk patients had CCT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that CCT-based evaluation had a 98.9% probability of being less expensive compared to SOC., Conclusion: Using a decision analytic model, CCT-based evaluation resulted in overall lower cost than the SOC for possible ACS patients over a wide range of cost and outcome assumptions, including computed tomography-related complications and downstream costs., (Copyright © 2012 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)