Comparison of coronary computed tomography angiography image quality with high- and low-concentration contrast agents (CONCENTRATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Image Quality With High-concentration and Low-concentration Contrast Agents: The Randomized CONCENTRATE Trial

PURPOSE

To confirm that the image quality of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography with a low tube voltage (80 to 100 kVp), iterative reconstruction, and low-concentration contrast agents (iodixanol 270 to 320 mgI/mL) was not inferior to that with conventional high tube voltage (120 kVp) and high-concentration contrast agent (iopamidol 370 mgI/mL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled a total of 318 patients from 8 clinical sites. All patients were randomly assigned 1: 1: 1 for each contrast medium of 270, 320, and 370 mgI/mL. CT scans were taken with a standard protocol in the high-concentration group (370 mgI/mL) and with 20 kVp lower protocol in the low-concentration group (270 or 320 mgI/mL). Image quality and radiation dose were compared between the groups. Image quality was evaluated with a score of 1 to 4 as subject image quality.

RESULTS

The mean HU, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio of the 3 groups were significantly different (all P<0.0001). The signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio of the low-concentration groups were significantly lower than those of the high-concentration group (P<0.05). However, the image quality scores were not significantly different among the 3 groups (P=0.745). The dose length product and effective dose of the high-concentration group were significantly higher than those of the low-concentration group (P<0.0001 and 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The CT protocol with iterative reconstruction and lower tube voltage for low-concentration contrast agents significantly reduced the effective radiation dose (mean: 3.7±2.7 to 4.1±3.1 mSv) while keeping the subjective image quality as good as the standard protocol (mean: 5.7±3.4 mSv).

Recommendations for designing and analysing multi-arm non-inferiority trials: a review of methodology and current practice

Background and purpose

Multi-arm non-inferiority (MANI) trials, here defined as non-inferiority trials with multiple experimental treatment arms, can be useful in situations where several viable treatments exist for a disease area or for testing different dose schedules. To maintain the statistical integrity of such trials, issues regarding both design and analysis must be considered, from both the multi-arm and the non-inferiority perspectives. Little guidance currently exists on exactly how these aspects should be addressed and it is the aim of this paper to provide recommendations to aid the design of future MANI trials.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review covering four databases was conducted to identify publications associated with MANI trials. Literature was split into methodological and trial publications in order to investigate the required design and analysis considerations for MANI trials and whether they were being addressed in practice.

Results

A number of issues were identified that if not properly addressed, could lead to issues with the FWER, power or bias. These ranged from the structuring of trial hypotheses at the design stage to the consideration of potential heterogeneous treatment variances at the analysis stage. One key issue of interest was adjustment for multiple testing at the analysis stage. There was little consensus concerning whether more powerful p value adjustment methods were preferred to approximate adjusted CIs when presenting and interpreting the results of MANI trials.

We found 65 examples of previous MANI trials, of which 31 adjusted for multiple testing out of the 39 that were adjudged to require it. Trials generally preferred to utilise simple, well-known methods for study design and analysis and while some awareness was shown concerning FWER inflation and choice of power, many trials seemed not to consider the issues and did not provide sufficient definition of their chosen design and analysis approaches.

Conclusions

While MANI trials to date have shown some awareness of the issues raised within this paper, very few have satisfied the criteria of the outlined recommendations. Going forward, trials should consider the recommendations in this paper and ensure they clearly define and reason their choices of trial design and analysis techniques.

Computed Tomographic Angiography for Risk Stratification in Patients with Acute Chest Pain - The Triple Rule-out Concept in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Acute chest pain is one of the most common reasons for Emergency Department (ED) visits and hospital admissions. As this could represent the first symptom of a lifethreatening condition, urgent identification of the etiology of chest pain is of utmost importance in emergency settings. Such high-risk conditions that can present with acute chest pain in the ED include Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS), Pulmonary Embolisms (PE) and Acute Aortic Syndromes (AAS).

DISCUSSION

The concept of Triple Rule-out Computed Tomographic Angiography (TRO-CTA) for patients presenting with acute chest pain in the ED is based on the use of coronary computed tomographic angiography as a single imaging technique, able to diagnose or exclude three lifethreatening conditions in one single step: ACS, AAS and PE. TRO-CTA protocols have been proved to be efficient in the ED for diagnosis or exclusion of life-threatening conditions and for differentiation between various etiologies of chest pain, and application of the TRO-CTA protocol in the ED for acute chest pain of uncertain etiology has been shown to improve the further clinical evaluation and outcomes of these patients.

CONCLUSION

This review aims to summarize the main indications and techniques used in TRO protocols in EDs, and the role of TRO-CTA protocols in risk stratification of patients with acute chest pain.