跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT01660594
NCT01660594已完成不适用

Comparison of CT Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring With Traditional Assessment in Patients Presenting to the Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinic With Non-acute Chest Pain and Its Prognostic Value

Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 705 人开始时间: 2011年6月最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
705
试验地点
1
主要终点
All-cause mortality

研究概览

简要总结

Patients with stable chest pain presenting to general practitioners in UK are routinely referred to the chest pain clinics in the hospitals. They are assessed by clinical history including risk factors, cardiovascular exam, resting ECG, chest x-ray, and exercise ECG. CT calcium scoring (CTCS) is a technique that is very sensitive in identifying and quantifying calcified atherosclerotic plaques. Recent guidance from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE, citation 1) proposes the use of CTCS in patients with stable chest pain who have low likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD). They recommend that patients with low likelihood (10-30%) have a CTCS and if the score is 0, they can be considered to have non-cardiac chest pain. However, there is controversy regarding relationship of absent calcification with significant CAD and its prognostic value.

At our institution, we have been performing CTCS in this patient cohort since 2003. We plan to retrospectively review the usefulness in CTCS in patients with different likelihood for significant CAD, particularly in patients with absent calcium and compare with the traditional assessment. We also plan to follow-up these patients for any myocardial infarction and death from any cause.

详细描述

The study seeks to determine the usefulness of CT calcium scoring (CTCS) in patients presenting with non-acute chest pain to the rapid access chest pain clinic (RACPC) and compare it with the traditional assessment in predicting significant CAD and outcome with respect to non-fatal MI or death. The clinical, diagnostic, and follow-up data of patients in last 7 years since CTCS has been performed in the hospital would be retrospectively analysed for the purpose.

Background Patients with chest pain (excluding that of sudden onset) are routinely referred by the GPs to the RACPC centres in the hospitals. They are assessed by clinical history including risk factors, cardiovascular exam, resting ECG, chest x-ray, and exercise ECG. At our institution, we have also been performing CTCS in men more than 40 and women more than 50 years of age since 2003. Recent NICE guidance1 recommends that patients with low pre-test probability (10-30%) of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) have a CT calcium scoring scan and if the score is 0, they can be considered to have non-cardiac chest pain. However, there is controversy regarding relationship of absent calcification with significant CAD and its prognostic value.

This study would enable us to compare and determine the value of CTCS in patients with non-acute chest pain in predicting significant CAD and safety of absent coronary artery calcification.

Rationale for Study

  1. To determine if CT coronary calcium scoring adds any value to the existing clinical assessment and exercise ECG. This is not well established in patients presenting with non-acute chest pain to the rapid access chest pain clinics.
  2. The study would help in determining if absence of calcification on CT can be considered to have low likelihood of significant coronary artery disease and a good cardiovascular outcome over the period of follow-up. Both these issues are currently controversial in the literature in this group of patients.

研究设计

研究类型
Observational
观察模型
Cohort
时间视角
Retrospective

入排标准

年龄范围
40 Years 至 80 Years(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • non-acute chest pain
  • those who underwent CT calcium scoring
  • availability of all relevant risk factor information

排除标准

  • previous coronary disease i.e., myocardial infarction or revascularization

结局指标

主要结局

All-cause mortality

时间窗: 7 years

次要结局

  • Non-fatal myocardial infarction(7 years)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验