Sixty-four-slice computed tomography of the coronary arteries: cost-effectiveness analysis of patients presenting to the emergency department with low-risk chest pain

Quality of health economic evaluations in emergency medicine journals: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Health economic evaluations are used in decision-making regarding resource allocation and it is imperative that they are completed with rigor. The primary objectives were to describe the characteristics and assess the quality of economic evaluations published in emergency medicine journals.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched 19 emergency medicine-specific journals via Medline and Embase from inception until March 3, 2022. Quality assessment was completed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, and the primary outcome was the QHES score out of 100. Additionally, we identified factors that may contribute to higher-quality publications.

RESULTS

7260 unique articles yielded 48 economic evaluations that met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cost-utility analyses and of high quality, with a median QHES score of 84 (interquartile range, IQR: 72, 90). Studies based on mathematical models and those primarily designed as an economic evaluation were associated with higher quality scores. The most commonly missed QHES items were: (i) providing and justifying the perspective of the analysis, (ii) providing justification for the primary outcome, and (iii) selecting an outcome that was long enough to allow for relevant events to occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of health economic evaluations in the emergency medicine literature are cost-utility analyses and are of high quality. Decision analytic models and studies primarily designed as economic analyses were positively correlated with higher quality. To improve study quality, future EM economic evaluations should justify the choice of the perspective of the analysis and the selection of the primary outcome.

Major adverse cardiac events after emergency department evaluation of chest pain patients with advanced testing: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to describe the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1, 6, and 12 months after a negative coronary computed tomography angiogram (cCTA), electrocardiogram (ECG) stress test, stress echocardiography, and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) in low- to intermediate-risk patients.

METHODS

Initially, 952 articles were identified for screening, 81 met criteria for full-text review, and once risk of bias was assessed, 33 articles were included in this meta-analysis. We utilized a random-effects model to assess pooled MACE event proportion for patients undergoing evaluation of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) when risk stratified to a low- to intermediate-risk category after undergoing standard testing. Heterogeneity analysis was performed using Cochrane's Q-test and I² statistic.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies evaluated follow-up at 1 month with cCTA having a 0.09% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.03% to 0.26%) pooled MACE compared to 0.23% (95% CI = 0.01% to 5.8%) of the exercise stress testing (p = 1). MPS and cCTA had an overall event rate of 0.15% (95% CI = 0.06% to 0.41%) at 6 months (I²  = 0%). At 12 months, a subgroup analysis found a pooled cCTA MACE of 0.16% (95% CI = 0.04% to 0.65%) compared to 1.68% (95% CI = 0.01% to 2.6%) for stress echocardiography with low within-group heterogeneity (I²  = 0%). Subgroup analysis of cCTA with no disease versus nonobstructive disease (<50% stenosis) did not find statistical difference in the MACE at both 1 month (0.17% [95% CI = 0.04% to 0.67%] vs. 0.06% [95% CI = 0.01% to 0.34%]) and 12 months (0.44% [95% CI = 0.09% to 2.2% vs. 0.54% [95% CI = 0.19% to 1.5%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with chest pain who have a coronary CTA showing < 50% stenosis, negative ECG stress test, stress echocardiography, or stress myocardial perfusion scan in the past 12 months can be discharged without any further risk stratification if their ECG and troponin are reassuring given low MACE.

Emergency Physician Risk Estimates and Admission Decisions for Chest Pain: A Web-Based Scenario Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We conducted this study to better understand how emergency physicians estimate risk and make admission decisions for patients with low-risk chest pain.

METHODS

We created a Web-based survey consisting of 5 chest pain scenarios that included history, physical examination, ECG findings, and basic laboratory studies, including a negative initial troponin-level result. We administered the scenarios in random order to emergency medicine residents and faculty at 11 US emergency medicine residency programs. We randomized respondents to receive questions about 1 of 2 endpoints, acute coronary syndrome or serious complication (death, dysrhythmia, or congestive heart failure within 30 days). For each scenario, the respondent provided a quantitative estimate of the probability of the endpoint, a qualitative estimate of the risk of the endpoint (very low, low, moderate, high, or very high), and an admission decision. Respondents also provided demographic information and completed a 3-item Fear of Malpractice scale.

RESULTS

Two hundred eight (65%) of 320 eligible physicians completed the survey, 73% of whom were residents. Ninety-five percent of respondents were wholly consistent (no admitted patient was assigned a lower probability than a discharged patient). For individual scenarios, probability estimates covered at least 4 orders of magnitude; admission rates for scenarios varied from 16% to 99%. The majority of respondents (>72%) had admission thresholds at or below a 1% probability of acute coronary syndrome. Respondents did not fully differentiate the probability of acute coronary syndrome and serious outcome; for each scenario, estimates for the two were quite similar despite a serious outcome being far less likely. Raters used the terms "very low risk" and "low risk" only when their probability estimates were less than 1%.

CONCLUSION

The majority of respondents considered any probability greater than 1% for acute coronary syndrome or serious outcome to be at least moderate risk and warranting admission. Physicians used qualitative terms in ways fundamentally different from how they are used in ordinary conversation, which may lead to miscommunication during shared decisionmaking processes. These data suggest that probability or utility models are inadequate to describe physician decisionmaking for patients with chest pain.

Understanding Emergency Care Delivery Through Computer Simulation Modeling

In 2017, Academic Emergency Medicine convened a consensus conference entitled, "Catalyzing System Change through Health Care Simulation: Systems, Competency, and Outcomes." This article, a product of the breakout session on "understanding complex interactions through systems modeling," explores the role that computer simulation modeling can and should play in research and development of emergency care delivery systems. This article discusses areas central to the use of computer simulation modeling in emergency care research. The four central approaches to computer simulation modeling are described (Monte Carlo simulation, system dynamics modeling, discrete-event simulation, and agent-based simulation), along with problems amenable to their use and relevant examples to emergency care. Also discussed is an introduction to available software modeling platforms and how to explore their use for research, along with a research agenda for computer simulation modeling. Through this article, our goal is to enhance adoption of computer simulation, a set of methods that hold great promise in addressing emergency care organization and design challenges.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis Appraisal and Application: An Emergency Medicine Perspective

Cost-effectiveness is an important goal for emergency care delivery. The many diagnostic, treatment, and disposition decisions made in the emergency department (ED) have a significant impact upon healthcare resource utilization. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an analytic tool to optimize these resource allocation decisions through the systematic comparison of costs and effects of alternative healthcare decisions. Yet few emergency medicine leaders and policymakers have any formal training in CEA methodology. This paper provides an introduction to the interpretation and use of CEA with a focus on application to emergency medicine problems and settings. It applies a previously published CEA to the hypothetical case of a patient presenting to the ED with chest pain who requires risk stratification. This paper uses a widely cited checklist to appraise the CEA. This checklist serves as a vehicle for presenting basic CEA terminology and concepts. General topics of focus include measurement of costs and outcomes, incremental analysis, and sensitivity analysis. Integrated throughout the paper are recommendations for good CEA practice with emphasis on the guidelines published by the U.S. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Unique challenges for emergency medicine CEAs discussed include the projection of long-term outcomes from emergent interventions, costing ED services, and applying study results to diverse patient populations across various ED settings. The discussion also includes an overview of the limitations inherent in applying CEA results to clinical practice to include the lack of incorporation of noncost considerations in CEA (e.g., ethics). After reading this article, emergency medicine leaders and researchers will have an enhanced understanding of the basics of CEA critical appraisal and application. The paper concludes with an overview of economic evaluation resources for readers interested in conducting ED-based economic evaluation studies.

Clinical update. Computed Tomography — an Emerging Tool for Triple Rule-Out in the Emergency Department. A Review

New imaging tools have been developed in recent years to rapidly and accurately diagnose life-threatening diseases associated with high mortality rates, such as acute coronary syndromes, acute aortic dissection, or pulmonary embolism. The concept of using computed tomographic (CT) assessment in emergency settings is based on the possibility of excluding multiple acute pathologies within one scan. It can be used for patients complaining of acute chest pain of unclear etiology with the possible association of acute coronary dissection or pulmonary embolism, but only a low to moderate risk of developing an acute coronary syndrome. One of the benefits of this protocol is the possibility of decreasing the number of patients who are hospitalized for further investigations. The technique also allows the rapid triage of patients and the safe discharge of those who show negative results. The aim of this review is to summarize the current medical literature regarding the potential use of CT for the triple rule-out (TRO) of coronary etiologies.

Cardiac computed tomography for the evaluation of the acute chest pain syndrome: state of the art

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is recommended for the triage of acute chest pain in patients with a low-to-intermediate likelihood for acute coronary syndrome. Absence of coronary artery disease (CAD) confirmed by CCTA allows rapid emergency department discharge. This article shows that CCTA-based triage is as safe as traditional triage, reduces the hospital length of stay, and may provide cost-effective or even cost-saving care.

Management of acute chest pain: A major role for coronary CT angiography

Most patients presenting with acute chest pain (ACP) at the emergency unit do not have any marked electrocardiogram abnormalities or known history of heart disease. Identifying the few patients who have, or will actually develop acute coronary syndrome in this group that is considered to be at low risk, is an actual clinical challenge for emergency department physicians. In these patients, the goal of complementary non-invasive morphological or functional imaging tests is to exclude heart disease. The diagnostic values of coronary CT angiography include a sensitivity of 96% and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.09, which are highly contributory to the diagnosis, and the integration of this imaging test into a decision tree algorithm appears to be the least expensive strategy with the best cost/effective ratio. Coronary CT angiography is indicated in the presence of ACP associated with an inconclusive electrocardiogram, in the absence of any other obvious diagnoses, when the ultrasensitive troponin assay is negative or the dynamic changes are modest, slow and/or inconclusive. Ideally, coronary CT angiography should be performed within 3 to 48hours after the initial consultation.

Coronary computed tomographic angiography in the emergency room: state of the art

Chest pain is a common complaint in the emergency department often necessitating testing to exclude underlying obstructive coronary artery disease. While the traditional evaluation of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome often consists of serial electrocardiograms and cardiac biomarkers, followed by selective use of stress testing for further risk stratification, this approach is costly and inefficient. Recently, coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) has offered an alternative approach with a high sensitivity and negative predictive value to exclude obstructive coronary artery disease that can rapidly identify patients with low rates of downstream major adverse cardiac events. In this review, the authors provide an overview of available data on the use of CTA for evaluating acute chest pain, while emphasizing its advantages and disadvantages compared to existing strategies. In addition, we provide a suggested algorithm to identify how CTA can be incorporated into the evaluation of acute chest pain and discuss tips for successful implementation of CTA in the emergency department.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel blood-pool contrast agent in the setting of chest pain evaluation in an emergency department

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated three diagnostic strategies with the objective of comparing the current standard of care for individuals presenting acute chest pain and no history of coronary artery disease (CAD) with a novel diagnostic strategy using an emerging technology (blood-pool contrast agent [BPCA]) to identify the potential benefits and cost reductions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision analytic model of diagnostic strategies and outcomes using a BPCA and a conventional agent for CT angiography (CTA) in patients with acute chest pain was built. The model was used to evaluate three diagnostic strategies: CTA using a BPCA followed by invasive coronary angiography (ICA), CTA using a conventional agent followed by ICA, and ICA alone.

RESULTS

The use of the two CTA-based triage tests before ICA in a population with a CAD prevalence of less than 47% was predicted to be more cost-effective than ICA alone. Using the base-case values and a cost premium for BPCA over the conventional CT agent (cost of BPCA ≈ 5× that of a conventional agent) showed that CTA with a BPCA before ICA resulted in the most cost-effective strategy; the other strategies were ruled out by simple dominance. The model strongly depends on the rates of complications from the diagnostic tests included in the model. In a population with an elevated risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), a significant premium cost per BPCA dose still resulted in the alternative whereby CTA using BPCA was more cost-effective than CTA using a conventional agent. A similar effect was observed for potential complications resulting from the BPCA injection. Conversely, in the presence of a similar complication rate from BPCA, the diagnostic strategy of CTA using a conventional agent would be the optimal alternative.

CONCLUSION

BPCAs could have a significant impact in the diagnosis of acute chest pain, in particular for populations with high incidences of CIN. In addition, a BPCA strategy could garner further savings if currently excluded phenomena including renal disease and incidental findings were included in the decision model.

Is it prime time for "rapid comprehensive cardiopulmonary imaging" in the emergency department?

Reducing hospital admissions through improved risk stratification of patients with potential acute coronary syndrome represents a critical focus for reducing health care expenditure. Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) has been used with increasing frequency as part of the evaluation of chest pain in the Emergency Department. In the appropriate group of patients at low to intermediate risk CTA appears to be an excellent evaluation strategy, safely and efficiently allowing for the rapid discharge of patients home.

Economic outcome of cardiac CT-based evaluation and standard of care for suspected acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department: a decision analytic model

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.

The feasibility of nurse-led assessment in acute chest pain admissions by means of coronary computed tomography

BACKGROUND

Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is a non-invasive imaging technique for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend CCT for selected patients in the assessment of chest pain of recent onset.

AIMS

To assess the feasibility and utility of CCT in a nurse-led, protocol-based assessment of chest pain.

METHODS

Patients admitted over 4 months with suspected angina were assessed for eligibility for CCT by a specialist nurse. Eligibility was defined by: a likelihood of CAD < 90%, no features of acute coronary syndrome, no contra-indications to the scanning process, and the ability to give written consent. An age and sex-matched historical cohort (for whom CCT was unavailable) was compared with the CCT cohort with regard to the diagnosis or exclusion of CAD at 3 months post-discharge from hospital.

RESULTS

Of 198 patients admitted, 98 were identified as eligible for CCT. Of these, 37 were recommended for alternative management on cardiologist review, 18 declined consent, 23 were unable to be scanned within 24 h prior to discharge and 14 underwent CCT. CAD was diagnosed or excluded in 14/14 patients undergoing CCT. CAD was diagnosed or excluded in 11/14 patients investigated without CCT, leaving 3/14 patients with no clear diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests nurses may be trained to assess patients for CCT within agreed protocols. In the UK it is likely these protocols will be based on NICE guidance. Despite potential diagnostic utility, CCT appears likely to form a small percentage of cardiac investigations undertaken.

Is coronary computed tomography angiography a resource sparing strategy in the risk stratification and evaluation of acute chest pain? Results of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Annually, almost 6 million U.S. citizens are evaluated for acute chest pain syndromes (ACPSs), and billions of dollars in resources are utilized. A large part of the resource utilization results from precautionary hospitalizations that occur because care providers are unable to exclude the presence of coronary artery disease (CAD) as the underlying cause of ACPSs. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the addition of coronary computerized tomography angiography (CCTA) to the concurrent standard care (SC) during an index emergency department (ED) visit could lower resource utilization when evaluating for the presence of CAD.

METHODS

Sixty participants were assigned randomly to SC or SC + CCTA groups. Participants were interviewed at the index ED visit and at 90 days. Data collected included demographics, perceptions of the value of accessing health care, and clinical outcomes. Resource utilization included services received from both the primary in-network and the primary out-of-network providers. The prospectively defined primary endpoint was the total amount of resources utilized over a 90-day follow-up period when adding CCTA to the SC risk stratification in ACPSs.

RESULTS

The mean (± standard deviation [SD]) for total resources utilized at 90 days for in-network plus out-of-network services was less for the participants in the SC + CCTA group ($10,134; SD ±$14,239) versus the SC-only group ($16,579; SD ±$19,148; p = 0.144), as was the median for the SC + CCTA ($4,288) versus SC only ($12,148; p = 0.652; median difference = -$1,291; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -$12,219 to $1,100; p = 0.652). Among the 60 total study patients, only 19 had an established diagnosis of CAD at 90 days. However, 18 (95%) of these diagnosed participants were in the SC + CCTA group. In addition, there were fewer hospital readmissions in the SC + CCTA group (6 of 30 [20%] vs. 16 of 30 [53%]; difference in proportions = -33%; 95% CI = -56% to -10%; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding CCTA to the current ED risk stratification of ACPSs resulted in no difference in the quantity of resources utilized, but an increased diagnosis of CAD, and significantly less recidivism and rehospitalization over a 90-day follow-up period.

The consequences of applying NICE chest pain guidelines to an acute medical population: a role for cardiac computed tomography

BACKGROUND

Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is a well-validated investigation for the non-invasive assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have recently released guidelines incorporating CCT into the diagnostic algorithm for chest pain of recent onset.

AIM

To assess the frequency of eligibility for CCT in medical admissions with suspected cardiac chest pain using criteria defined by NICE.

DESIGN

A retrospective, observational study, set in a teaching hospital acute medical unit.

METHODS

A total of 198 consecutive patients admitted over a 4-month period with suspected cardiac chest pain (57% male; mean age 63.5 years) were assessed for eligibility for CCT based on NICE guideline criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 198 patients admitted, 65 (33%) patients were excluded by a raised troponin I or ischaemic ECG changes; 100 (51%) patients were excluded by pain categorized as non-anginal and 171 (86%) patients were excluded by a modified Diamond Forrester score outside the range 10-29%. Applying NICE criteria to this population ultimately resulted in 2 (1%) patients recommended for CCT, 12 (6%) for functional cardiac testing and 17 (9%) for invasive angiography.

CONCLUSION

Applying current NICE guidelines for chest pain of recent onset to medical admissions results in a lesser uptake of CCT than functional testing and invasive angiography. If the NICE guidelines are revised to include patients with an intermediate pre-test probability of CAD, CCT may have a greater role.

Cost-effective diagnostic cardiovascular imaging: when does it provide good value for the money?

To summarize the results of all original cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in diagnostic cardiovascular imaging (CVI) and characterize those technologies by estimates of their cost-effectiveness. We systematically searched the literature for original CVI CUAs published between 2000 and 2008. Studies were classified according to several variables including anatomy of interest (e.g. cerebrovascular, aorta, peripheral) and imaging modality under study (e.g. angiography, ultrasound). The results of each study, expressed as cost of the intervention to number of quality-adjusted life years saved ratio (cost/QALY) were additionally classified as favorable or not using $20,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY thresholds. The distribution of results was assessed with Chi Square or Fisher exact test, as indicated. Sixty-nine percent of all cardiovascular imaging CUAs were published between 2000 and 2008. Thirty-two studies reporting 82 cost/QALY ratios were included in the final sample. The most common vascular areas studied were cerebrovascular (n = 9) and cardiac (n = 8). Sixty-six percent (21/32) of studies focused on sonography, followed by conventional angiography and CT (25%, n = 8, each). Twenty-nine (35.4%), 42 (51.2%), and 53 (64.6%) ratios were favorable at WTP $20,000/QALY, $50,000/QALY, and $100,000/QALY, respectively. Thirty (36.6%) ratios compared one imaging test versus medical or surgical interventions; 26 (31.7%) ratios compared imaging to a different imaging test and another 26 (31.7%) to no intervention. Imaging interventions were more likely (P < 0.01) to be favorable when compared to observation, medical treatment or non-intervention than when compared to a different imaging test at WTP $100,000/QALY. The diagnostic cardiovascular imaging literature has growth substantially. The studies available have, in general, favorable cost-effectiveness profiles with major determinants relating to being compared against observation, medical or no intervention instead of other imaging tests.

Low dose CT of the heart: a quantum leap into a new era of cardiovascular imaging

In 10 years, computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) has shifted from an investigational tool to clinical reality. Even though CT technologies are very advanced and widely available, a large body of evidence supporting the clinical role of CTCA is missing. The reason is that the speed of technological development has outpaced the ability of the scientific community to demonstrate the clinical utility of the technique. In addition, with each new CT generation, there is a further broadening of actual and potential applications. In this review we examine the state of the art on CTCA. In particular, we focus on issues concerning technological development, radiation dose, implementation, training and organisation.

CT of coronary artery disease

Technical innovation is rapidly improving the clinical utility of cardiac computed tomography (CT) and will increasingly address current technical limitations, especially the association of this test with relatively high levels of radiation. Guidelines for appropriate indications are in place and are evolving, with an increasing evidence base to ensure the appropriate use of this modality. New technologies and new applications, such as myocardial perfusion imaging and dual-energy CT, are being explored and are widening the scope of coronary CT angiography from mere coronary artery assessment to the integrative analysis of cardiac morphology, function, perfusion, and viability. The scientific evaluation of coronary CT angiography has left the stage of feasibility testing and increasingly, evidence-based data are accumulating on outcomes, prognosis, and cost-effectiveness. In this review, these developments will be discussed in the context of current pivotal transitions in cardiovascular disease management and their potential influence on the current role and future fate of coronary CT angiography will be examined.

Usefulness of age and gender in the early triage of patients with acute chest pain having cardiac computed tomographic angiography

To identify the age- and gender-specific subpopulations of patients with acute chest pain in whom coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) will yield the greatest diagnostic benefit. Subjects with acute chest pain and an inconclusive initial evaluation (nondiagnostic electrocardiograhic findings, negative cardiac biomarkers) underwent contrast-enhanced 64-slice coronary CTA as a part of an observational cohort study. Independent investigators determined the presence of significant coronary stenosis (>50% luminal narrowing) and the occurrence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during the index hospitalization. We determined the diagnostic accuracy and effect on pretest probability of ACS using Bayes' theorem by age and gender. Of 368 patients (age 52.7 +/- 12 years, 61% men), 8% had ACS. The presence of significant coronary stenosis on CTA and the occurrence of ACS increased with age for both men and women (p <0.001). Cardiac CTA was highly sensitive and specific in women <65 years of age (sensitivity 100% and specificity >87%) and men <55 years of age (sensitivity 100% for men <45 years and 80% for men 45 to 54 years old; specificity >88.2%). Moreover, in these patients, coronary CTA led to restratification from low to high risk (for positive findings on CTA) or from low to very low risk (for negative findings on CTA). In contrast, a negative result on CTA did not result in restratification to a low-risk category in women >65 years and men >55 years old. In conclusion, the present analysis provides initial evidence that men <55 years and women <65 years might benefit more from cardiac CTA than older patients. Thus, age and gender might serve as simple criteria to appropriately select patients who would derive the greatest diagnostic benefit from coronary CTA in the setting of acute chest pain.

Triple-rule-out CT angiography for evaluation of acute chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome

Triple-rule-out (TRO) computed tomographic (CT) angiography can provide a cost-effective evaluation of the coronary arteries, aorta, pulmonary arteries, and adjacent intrathoracic structures for the patient with acute chest pain. TRO CT is most appropriate for the patient who is judged to be at low to intermediate risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and whose symptoms may also be attributed to acute pathologic conditions of the aorta or pulmonary arteries. Although a regular cardiac rhythm remains an important factor in coronary CT image quality, newer CT scanners with 64 or more detector rows afford rapid electrocardiographically (ECG) gated imaging to provide high-quality TRO CT studies in patients with a heart rate of up to 80 beats per minute. Injection of iodinated contrast material (< or = 100 mL) is tailored to provide simultaneous high levels of arterial enhancement in the coronary arteries and aorta (> 300 HU) and in the pulmonary arteries (> 200 HU). To limit radiation exposure, the TRO CT examination does not include the entire chest but is constrained to incorporate the aortic arch down through the heart. Scanning parameters, including prospective ECG tube current modulation and prospective ECG gating with the "step-and-shoot" technique, are tailored to reduce radiation exposure (optimally, 5-9 mSv). When performed with appropriate attention to timing and technique, TRO CT provides coronary image quality equal to that of dedicated coronary CT angiography and pulmonary arterial images that are free of motion artifact related to cardiac pulsation. In an appropriately selected emergency department patient population, TRO CT can safely eliminate the need for further diagnostic testing in over 75% of patients.

Low-risk patients with chest pain in the emergency department: negative 64-MDCT coronary angiography may reduce length of stay and hospital charges

OBJECTIVE

The current standard-of-care workup of low-risk patients with chest pain in an emergency department takes 12-36 hours and is expensive. We hypothesized that negative 64-MDCT coronary angiography early in the workup of such patients may enable a shorter length of stay and reduce charges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The standard-of-care evaluation consisted of serial cardiac enzyme tests, ECGs, and stress testing. After informed consent, we added cardiac CT early in the standard-of-care workup of 53 consecutive patients. Fifty patients had negative CT findings and were included in this series. The length of stay and charges were analyzed using actual patient data for all patients in the standard-of-care workup and for two earlier discharge scenarios based on negative cardiac CT results: First, CT plus serial enzyme tests and ECGs during an observation period followed by discharge if all were negative; and second, CT plus one set of enzyme tests and one ECG followed by discharge if all were negative. Comparisons were made using paired Student's t tests.

RESULTS

For standard of care and the two CT-based earlier discharge analyses, the mean lengths of stay were 25.4, 14.3, and 5.0 hours; mean charges were $7,597, $6,153, and $4,251. Length of stay and charges were both significantly less (p < 0.001) for the two CT-based analyses.

CONCLUSION

In low-risk patients with chest pain, discharge from the emergency department based on negative cardiac CT, enzyme tests, and ECG may significantly decrease both length of stay and hospital charges compared with the standard of care.

Accuracy and Cost Comparison of Ultrasound Versus Alternative Imaging Modalities, Including CT, MR, PET, and Angiography

Ultrasound (US) has become widely used in clinical medicine for the diagnosis of a variety of disease processes. The unique ability of US to provide accurate information through an efficacious, painless, portable, and nonionizing method has expanded its role and application in diverse medical settings. Given the current economic environment and the related interest in creating the greatest value for health care expenditures, US has been evaluated to compare its clinical accuracy/efficacy and cost-effectiveness versus other imaging modalities. The following literature review reports the results of research studies aimed at comparing the accuracy/efficacy and cost of US versus alternative imaging modalities, including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, contrast angiography, and single-photon emission computed tomography.

Coronary computed tomographic angiography for rapid discharge of low-risk patients with potential acute coronary syndromes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography has excellent performance characteristics relative to coronary angiography and exercise or pharmacologic stress testing. We hypothesize that coronary CT angiography can identify a cohort of emergency department (ED) patients with a potential acute coronary syndrome who can be safely discharged with a less than 1% risk of 30-day cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study at an urban university hospital ED that enrolled consecutive patients with potential acute coronary syndromes and a low TIMI risk score who presented to the ED with symptoms suggestive of a potential acute coronary syndrome and received a coronary CT angiography. Our intervention was either immediate coronary CT angiography in the ED or after a 9- to 12-hour observation period that included cardiac marker determinations, depending on time of day. The main clinical outcome was 30-day cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-eight patients with potential acute coronary syndrome were evaluated: 285 of these received coronary CT angiography immediately in the ED and 283 received coronary CT angiography after a brief observation period. Four hundred seventy-six (84%) were discharged home after coronary CT angiography. During the 30-day follow-up period, no patients died of a cardiovascular event (0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0% to 0.8%) or sustained a nonfatal myocardial infarction (0%; 95% CI 0 to 0.8%).

CONCLUSION

ED patients with symptoms concerning for a potential acute coronary syndrome with a low TIMI risk score and a nonischemic initial ECG result can be safely discharged home after a negative coronary CT angiography test result.