Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Versus Stress Echocardiography in Acute Chest Pain

Coronary Artery Disease: Role of Computed Tomography and Recent Advances

In this review, the authors summarize the role of coronary computed tomography angiography and coronary artery calcium scoring in different clinical presentations of chest pain and preventative care and discuss future directions and new technologies such as pericoronary fat inflammation and the growing footprint of artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine.

[Stress-Echocardiography in Low-risk Acute Coronary Syndrome Without Persistent ST-segment Elevation Diagnostic Algorithm]

This review addresses the capabilities of stress EchoCG as a simple, non-invasive, non-radiation method for diagnosing occult disorders of coronary blood flow in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome on a low-risk electrocardiogram. The capabilities of the enhanced stress EchoCG protocol are based on supplementing the standard detection of transient disturbances of local contractility, generally associated with coronary artery obstruction, with an assessment of the heart rate reserve, coronary reserve and other parameters. This approach is considered promising for a more complete characterization of heart function during exercise and an accurate prognosis of the clinical case, which allows determining the tactics for patient management not limited to selection for myocardial revascularization.

Role of computed tomography cardiac angiography in acute chest pain syndromes

Use of CT coronary angiography (CTCA) to evaluate chest pain has rapidly increased over the recent years. While its utility in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in stable chest pain syndromes is clear and is strongly endorsed by international guidelines, the role of CTCA in the acute setting is less certain. In the low-risk setting, CTCA has been shown to be accurate, safe and efficient but inherent low rates of adverse events in this population and the advent of high-sensitivity troponin testing have left little room for CTCA to show any short-term clinical benefit.In higher-risk populations, CTCA has potential to fulfil a gatekeeper role to invasive angiography. The high negative predictive value of CTCA is maintained while also identifying non-obstructive coronary disease and alternative diagnoses in the substantial group of patients presenting with chest pain who do not have type 1 myocardial infarction. For those with obstructive coronary disease, CTCA provides accurate assessment of stenosis severity, characterisation of high-risk plaque and findings associated with perivascular inflammation. This may allow more appropriate selection of patients to proceed to invasive management with no disadvantage in outcomes and can provide a more comprehensive risk stratification to guide both acute and long-term management than routine invasive angiography.

Comparative Effectiveness of Coronary CT Angiography and Standard of Care for Evaluating Acute Chest Pain: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To perform a living systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and standard of care (SOC) in the evaluation of acute chest pain (ACP).

Materials and Methods

Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched, with the most recent search conducted on October 31, 2022. Studies were stratified into two groups according to the pretest probability for acute coronary syndrome (group 1 with predominantly low-to-intermediate risk vs group 2 with high risk). A meta-regression analysis was also conducted using participant risk, type of SOC used, and the use or nonuse of high-sensitivity troponins as independent variables.

Results

The final analysis included 22 randomized controlled trials (9379 total participants; 4956 assigned to CCTA arms and 4423 to SOC arms). There was a 14% reduction in the length of stay and a 17% reduction in immediate costs for the CCTA arm compared with the SOC arm. In group 1, the length of stay was 17% shorter and costs were 21% lower using CCTA. There was no evidence of differences in referrals to invasive coronary angiography, myocardial infarction, mortality, rate of hospitalization, further stress testing, or readmissions between CCTA and SOC arms. There were more revascularizations (relative risk, 1.45) and medication changes (relative risk, 1.33) in participants with low-to-intermediate acute coronary syndrome risk and increased radiation exposure in high-risk participants (mean difference, 7.24 mSv) in the CCTA arm compared with the SOC arm. The meta-regression analysis found significant differences between CCTA and SOC arms for rate of hospitalization, further stress testing, and medication changes depending on the type of SOC (P < .05).

Conclusion

The results support the use of CCTA as a safe, rapid, and less expensive in the short term strategy to exclude acute coronary syndrome in low- to intermediate-risk patients presenting with acute chest pain.Keywords: Acute Coronary Syndrome, Chest Pain, Emergency Department, Coronary Computed Tomography, Usual Care Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Evolution of Stress Echocardiogram in the Era of CT Angiography

The ideal diagnostic modality for acute chest pain is a highly debated topic in the cardiovascular community. With the rapid rise of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and the fall of functional testing, stress echocardiography (SE) is at a delicate crossroads. Though there are many advantages of coronary CTA, it is not without its flaws. The exact realm of SE needs to be clearly defined, as well as which patients need diagnostic testing. The emergence of additional parameters will propel the evolution of modern SE. In this review article, we explore the role of SE, guidelines, comparison of SE versus CTA, and additional parameters in the coronary CTA era.

Role of Deep Learning in Computed Tomography

Computed tomography has played an instrumental role in the understanding of the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis in coronary artery disease. It enables visualization of the plaque obstruction and vessel stenosis in a comprehensive manner. As technology for computed tomography is constantly evolving, coronary applications and possibilities are constantly expanding. This influx of information can overwhelm a physician's ability to interpret information in this era of big data. Machine learning is a revolutionary approach that can help provide limitless pathways in patient management. Within these machine algorithms, deep learning has tremendous potential and can revolutionize computed tomography and cardiovascular imaging. In this review article, we highlight the role of deep learning in various aspects of computed tomography.

Reduced coronary flow velocity reserve and blunted heart rate reserve identify a higher risk group in patients with chest pain and negative emergency department evaluation

To estimate the prognostic value of stress echo (SE) with the assessment of coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) and heart rate reserve (HRR) in patients admitted for chest pain with non-diagnostic EKG, negative troponin, and without inducible regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMA). 658 patients (age 67 ± 12 years) admitted to our Emergency Department with chest pain, non-diagnostic EKG, and negative serial troponin underwent dipyridamole (0.84 mg/kg in 6') SE with simultaneous assessment of RWMA, CFVR in the left anterior descending artery, and HRR as peak/rest heart rate. The outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Of the 658 patients initially enrolled, 20 (3%) showed RWMA during SE and were referred to ischemia-driven revascularization. In the remaining 638, CFVR was abnormal (≤ 2.0) in 148 patients (23%). HRR was abnormal (≤ 1.22 in patients in sinus rhythm, or ≤ 1.17 in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation) in 196 patients (31%). During a follow-up of 7.3 ± 4.3 years, 151 (24%) patients died. Survival at 8 years was 93% in patients with normal CFVR and HRR, 76% in patients with abnormal CFVR only, 73% in patients with abnormal HRR only, and 38% in those with abnormal CFVR and HRR (p < 0.0001). At multivariable analysis, abnormal CFVR (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05-2.10, p = 0.02) and abnormal HRR (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.43-2.84, p < 0.0001) were independent predictors of survival. In admitted patients with non-ischemic EKG, negative serial troponin, and without RWMA during dipyridamole SE, a reduced CFVR and blunted HRR independently identify a subset with worse survival in the long term. Upper panel: Color and pulsed-wave Doppler with the electrocardiographic lead tracing of Four different response patterns (from left to right): normal CFVR and HRR; normal CFVR, abnormal HRR; abnormal CFVR, normal HRR; abnormal CFVR and HRR. Lower panel: The annualized death rate for each of the four groups with negative SE for RWMA and stratified according to the presence of CFVR and HRR: none, one, or two abnormalities.

Cardiac CT angiography in current practice: An American society for preventive cardiology clinical practice statement✰

In this clinical practice statement, we represent a summary of the current evidence and clinical applications of cardiac computed tomography (CT) in evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD), from an expert panel organized by the American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC), and appraises the current use and indications of cardiac CT in clinical practice. Cardiac CT is emerging as a front line non-invasive diagnostic test for CAD, with evidence supporting the clinical utility of cardiac CT in diagnosis and prevention. CCTA offers several advantages beyond other testing modalities, due to its ability to identify and characterize coronary stenosis severity and pathophysiological changes in coronary atherosclerosis and stenosis, aiding in early diagnosis, prognosis and management of CAD. This document further explores the emerging applications of CCTA based on functional assessment using CT derived fractional flow reserve, peri‑coronary inflammation and artificial intelligence (AI) that can provide personalized risk assessment and guide targeted treatment. We sought to provide an expert consensus based on the latest evidence and best available clinical practice guidelines regarding the role of CCTA as an essential tool in cardiovascular prevention - applicable to risk assessment and early diagnosis and management, noting potential areas for future investigation.

Resource Utilization Following Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography and Stress Echocardiography in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Chest Pain

This study aimed to assess long-term resource utilization and outcomes in patients with acute chest pain who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and stress echocardiography (SE). This was a retrospective, propensity-matched analysis of health insurance claims data for a national sample of privately insured patients over the period January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014. There were 3,816 patients matched 1:1 who received either CCTA (n = 1,908) or SE (n = 1,908). Patients were seen in the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011 with a primary diagnosis of chest pain and received either CCTA or SE within 72 hours as the first noninvasive test and maintained continuous enrollment in the database from the time of the ED encounter through December 31, 2014. All individual patient data were censored at 3 years. Compared with SE, CCTA was associated with higher odds of downstream cardiac catheterization (9.9% vs 7.7%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.63), future noninvasive testing (27.7% vs 22.3%, AOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.42), and return ED visits or hospitalization for chest pain at 3 years (33.1% vs 24.2%, AOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59). There were no statistically significant differences in new statin use (15.5% vs 14.9%, AOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28), coronary revascularization (2.7% vs 2.2%, AOR 1.25, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.01) or hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 0.9%, AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.99). In conclusion, in patients who present to the ED with chest pain, CCTA is associated with increased downstream resource utilization compared with SE with no differences in long-term cardiovascular outcomes.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Desempenho Diagnóstico da Angiotomografia Computadorizada e da Avaliação Seriada de Troponina Cardíaca Sensível em Pacientes com Dor Torácica e Risco Intermediário para Eventos Cardiovasculares

Fundamento

A angiotomografia coronária (ATC) tem sido usada para avaliação de dor torácica principalmente em pacientes de baixo risco, e poucos dados existem com pacientes em risco intermediário.

Objetivo

Avaliar o desempenho de medidas seriadas de troponinas sensíveis e de ATC em pacientes de risco intermediário.

Métodos

Um total de 100 pacientes com dor torácica, TIMI score 3 ou 4 e troponina negativa foram prospectivamente incluídos. Todos os pacientes foram submetidos à ATC, e aqueles com obstruções ≥ 50% foram encaminhados à cineangiocoronariografia. Pacientes com lesões < 50% recebiam alta hospitalar, receberam alta e foram contatados 30 dias depois por telefonema para avaliação dos desfechos clínicos. Os desfechos foram hospitalização, morte, e infarto agudo do miocárdio em 30 dias. A comparação entre os métodos foi realizada pelo teste de concordância kappa. O desempenho das medidas de troponina e da ATC na detecção de lesões coronárias significativas e desfechos clínicos foi calculado. Os resultados foram considerados estatisticamente significativos quando p <0,05.

Resultados

Estenose coronária ≥ 50% na ATC foi encontrada em 38% dos pacientes e lesões coronárias significativas na angiografia coronária foram encontradas em 31 pacientes. Dois eventos clínicos foram observados. A análise de concordância Kappa mostrou baixa concordância entre as medidas de troponina e ATC na detecção de lesões coronárias significativas (kappa = 0,022, p = 0,78). O desempenho da ATC para detectar lesões coronárias significativas na angiografia coronária ou para prever eventos clínicos em 30 dias foi melhor que as medidas de troponina sensível (acurácia de 91% versus 60%).

Conclusão

ATC teve melhor desempenho que as medidas seriadas de troponina na detecção de doença coronariana significativa em pacientes com dor torácica e risco intermediário para eventos cardiovasculares.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Comparing downstream consequences of normal exercise stress echocardiograms and cardiac computed tomography angiography scans in patients suspected of having of obstructive coronary artery disease: a retrospective cohort study of Tricare beneficiaries

To compare overall number of downstream tests and total costs between negative exercise stress echocardiograms (ESE) or cardiac computed tomography angiography scans (CCTA) in symptomatic Tricare beneficiaries suspected of having coronary artery disease (CAD). This is a retrospective cohort study examining 651 propensity-matched patients who underwent ESE or CCTA with normal results between 2008 and 2014 at the United States’ largest Department of Defense hospital. The total number of additional downstream tests over the next five years was determined. The total costs associated with each arm, inclusive of the initial test and all subsequent tests, were calculated using the 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. 18.5 percent of patients with a normal ESE result underwent some additional form of cardiac testing over the five years after initial testing compared to 12.8 percent of patients with a normal CCTA. The absolute difference in total number of downstream tests between both study groups was 5.7 percent (p = 0.03). When factoring the costs of the initial test as well as the downstream tests, the ESE group was associated with overall lower costs compared to the CCTA group, 351 United States Dollars (USD) versus 496 USD (p < 0.0001). This study demonstrates that, when compared to CCTA, ESE is associated with a higher total number of downstream tests, but overall lower total costs when chosen as initial testing strategy for suspected CAD.

Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Complete Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) has shown great technological improvements over the last 2 decades. High accuracy of CTA in detecting significant coronary stenosis has promoted CTA as a substitute for conventional invasive coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. In patients with coronary stenosis, CTA-derived physiological assessment is surrogate for intracoronary pressure and velocity wires, and renders possible decision-making about revascularization solely based on computed tomography. Computed tomography coronary anatomy with functionality assessment could potentially become a first line in diagnosis. Noninvasive imaging assessment of plaque burden and morphology is becoming a valuable substitute for intravascular imaging. Recently, wall shear stress and perivascular inflammation have been introduced. These assessments could support risk management for both primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention. Anatomy, functionality, and plaque composition by CTA tend to replace invasive assessment. Complete CTA assessment could provide a 1-stop-shop for diagnosis, risk management, and decision-making on treatment.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Cardiovascular Imaging

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in Western countries and leads to a spectrum of complications that can complicate patient management. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has garnered significant interest in many industries, and the field of cardiovascular imaging is no exception. Machine learning (ML) especially is showing significant promise in various diagnostic imaging modalities. As conventional statistics are reaching their apex in computational capabilities, ML can explore new possibilities and unravel hidden relationships. This will have a positive impact on diagnosis and prognosis for cardiovascular imaging. In this in-depth review, we highlight the role of AI and ML for various cardiovascular imaging modalities.

Comparison of two strategies in a chest pain unit: stress echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare stress echocardiography (SE) and multidetector computed tomography (MCT) in patients admitted to a chest pain unit to detect acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

A total of 203 patients with ≥ 1 cardiovascular risk factor, no ischemic electrocardiogram changes and negative biomarkers were randomized to SE (n=103) or MTC (n=100). The primary endpoint was a combination of hard events (death and nonfatal myocardial infarction), revascularizations, and readmissions during follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the cost of the 2 strategies.

RESULTS

Invasive angiography was performed in 61 patients (34 [33%] in the SE group and in 27 [27%] in the MCT group, P=.15). A final diagnosis of ACS was made in 53 patients (88% vs 85%, P=.35). There were no significant differences between groups in the primary endpoint (42% vs 41%, P=.91), or in hard events (5% vs 7%, P=.42). There were no significant differences in overall cost, but costs were lower in patients with negative SE than in those with negative MCT (€557 vs €706, P <.02).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were found in efficacy and safety for the stratification of patients with a low to moderate probability of ACS admitted to a chest pain unit. The cost of the 2 strategies was similar, but cost was significantly lower for SE on comparison of negative studies.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Nonspecific Chest Pain-Low Probability of Coronary Artery Disease

Patients with acute nonspecific chest pain and low probability for coronary disease remain an important clinical management dilemma. We focus on evidence for imaging, in an integrated decision-making setting. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Comparison Between Anatomical and Functional Imaging Modalities for Evaluation of Chest Pain in the Emergency Department

Evaluation of chest pain in the emergency department (ED) frequently employs a noninvasive strategy, including coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress echocardiography (SE), or myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). We sought to report the real-world experience of utilizing CCTA compared with SE and MPI at an urban hospital ED. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutively enrolled patients presenting with chest pain who had normal or nondiagnostic electrocardiogram (ECG), negative initial troponin-T, at least intermediate risk based on modified Diamond-Forrester criteria, and who underwent CCTA, SE, or MPI based on their individual test eligibility criteria. The primary outcome was ED discharge time. Secondary outcomes included test utilization and 30-days rehospitalization rates. The 2,143 patients who were included (mean age was 56 ± 12 years; 55% women) utilization rate (test performed/eligible) was lower for CCTA (n = 354/1,329) and MPI (n = 530/1,435) compared with SE (n = 1,259/1,650), p <0.001. Mean ED discharge times for both CCTA and SE were 12.5 ± 7.4 versus 16 ± 7.3 hours for MPI (p <0.0001). Patients with SE and CCTA were less likely to undergo coronary angiography (29%, 25%, vs 52% for MPI). There was a 1% cardiac-related 30-days rehospitalization rate in the CCTA group versus 1% in SE and 3% in the MPI group (p <0.01). In conclusion, CCTA and SE were associated with faster ED discharge and lower frequency of diagnostic coronary angiography. Notwithstanding its clinical utility, CCTA was underutilized at our large urban ED setting.