Early computed tomography coronary angiography in adults presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome: the RAPID-CTCA RCT

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.

Cardiac Biomarkers in 2022 – a Vital Tool for Emergency Care

The role of cardiac biomarkers in diagnosing acute myocardial infarction is undoubted. In the 2020 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology, the measurement of cardiac peptides to gain prognostic information has a class IIa indication in all patients with ACS. In emergency care, ruling out a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction requires documentation of normal levels of cardiac biomarkers, which remain stable or have very small variations within several hours. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge and recent progresses in the field of cardiac biomarker discovery, from their routine use in emergency rooms to their prognostic roles in modern risk assessment tools. Integrated approaches combining cardiac troponin with other biomarkers of ventricular dysfunction or inflammation, or with modern cardiac imaging in emergency care are also presented, as well as the role of modern algorithms for serial troponin measurement in the modern management of emergency departments.