European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 2784–2793 | Cite as

Clinical implementation of an emergency department coronary computed tomographic angiography protocol for triage of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome

  • Brian B. Ghoshhajra
  • Richard A. P. Takx
  • Pedro V. Staziaki
  • Harshna Vadvala
  • Phillip Kim
  • Tomas G. Neilan
  • Nandini M. Meyersohn
  • Daniel Bittner
  • Sumbal A. Janjua
  • Thomas Mayrhofer
  • Jeffrey L. Greenwald
  • Quyhn A. Truong
  • Suhny Abbara
  • David F. M. Brown
  • James L. Januzzi
  • Sanjeev Francis
  • John T. Nagurney
  • Udo Hoffmann
  • on behalf of MGH Emergency Cardiac CTA Program Contributors
Cardiac

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the efficiency and safety of emergency department (ED) coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) during a 3-year clinical experience.

Methods

Single-center registry of coronary CTA in consecutive ED patients with suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The primary outcome was efficiency of coronary CTA defined as the length of hospitalization. Secondary endpoints of safety were defined as the rate of downstream testing, normalcy rates of invasive coronary angiography (ICA), absence of missed ACS, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during follow-up, and index radiation exposure.

Results

One thousand twenty two consecutive patients were referred for clinical coronary CTA with suspicion of ACS. Overall, median time to discharge home was 10.5 (5.7-24.1) hours. Patient disposition was 42.7 % direct discharge from the ED, 43.2 % discharge from emergency unit, and 14.1 % hospital admission. ACS rate during index hospitalization was 9.1 %. One hundred ninety two patients underwent additional diagnostic imaging and 77 underwent ICA. The positive predictive value of CTA compared to ICA was 78.9 % (95 %-CI 68.1-87.5 %). Median CT radiation exposure was 4.0 (2.5-5.8) mSv. No ACS was missed; MACE at follow-up after negative CTA was 0.2 %.

Conclusions

Coronary CTA in an experienced tertiary care setting allows for efficient and safe management of patients with suspicion for ACS.

Key points

• ED Coronary CTA using advanced systems is associated with low radiation exposure.

• Negative coronary CTA is associated with low rates of MACE.

• CTA in ED patients enables short median time to discharge home.

• CTA strategy is characterized by few downstream tests including unnecessary ICA.

Keywords

Coronary artery disease Multidetector computed tomography Emergency service Hospital Length of stay Cardiovascular diseases 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Brian B. Ghoshhajra. The authors of this manuscript declare no relevant relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Drs. Bittner and Hoffmann supported by NIH/NHLBI 5K24HL113128. Drs. Janjua, Lu, Meyersohn, Pursnani, Singh, and Sharma were supported by NIH/NHLBI 5T32HL076136. Dr. Ghoshhajra has received minor unrelated consulting fees from Siemens Healthcare, USA, and unrelated institutional grants from Siemens Healthcare, USA. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: registry, observational, performed at one institution.

On behalf of MGH Emergency Cardiac CTA Program Contributors

Andy K. Chan

Garry Choy

Rajiv Gupta

Mannudeep Kalra

Ali Karaosmanoglu

Marie-Helene Levesque

Michael T. Lu

George R. Oliveira

Anand M. Prabhakar

Naveen Kulkarni

Paul Gabriel Peterson

Jonathan Scheske

Parmanand Singh

Amit Pursnani

Marcello Panagia

Karl Sayegh

Umesh Sharma

Christopher Walker

Stacey Verzosa

Supplementary material

330_2016_4562_MOESM1_ESM.docx (120 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 120 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bittencourt MS, Hulten E, Ghoshhajra B et al (2014) Prognostic value of nonobstructive and obstructive coronary artery disease detected by coronary computed tomography angiography to identify cardiovascular events. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 7:282–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rubinshtein R, Halon DA, Gaspar T et al (2007) Usefulness of 64-slice cardiac computed tomographic angiography for diagnosing acute coronary syndromes and predicting clinical outcome in emergency department patients with chest pain of uncertain origin. Circulation 115:1762–1768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldstein JA, Chinnaiyan KM, Abidov A et al (2011) The CT-STAT (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Systematic Triage of Acute Chest Pain Patients to Treatment) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:1414–1422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoffmann U, Truong QA, Schoenfeld DA et al (2012) Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med 367:299–308CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Litt HI, Gatsonis C, Snyder B et al (2012) CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 366:1393–1403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandfort V, Lima JA, Bluemke DA (2015) Noninvasive imaging of atherosclerotic plaque progression: status of coronary computed tomography angiography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 8:e003316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    investigators S-H (2015) CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet 385:2383–2391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang AM, Shofer FS, Weiner MG et al (2008) Actual financial comparison of four strategies to evaluate patients with potential acute coronary syndromes. Acad Emerg Med 15:649–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beinfeld MT, Gazelle GS (2005) Diagnostic imaging costs: are they driving up the costs of hospital care? Radiology 235:934–939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cook TS, Galperin-Aizenberg M, Litt HI (2013) Coronary and cardiac computed tomography in the emergency room: current status and future directions. J Thorac Imaging 28:204–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nosek BA, Spies JR, Motyl M (2012) Scientific Utopia: II. restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspect Psychol Sci 7:615–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dreyer NA, Garner S (2009) Registries for robust evidence. JAMA 302:790–791CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vadvala H, Kim P, Mayrhofer T et al (2014) Coronary CTA using scout-based automated tube potential and current selection algorithm, with breast displacement results in lower radiation exposure in females compared to males. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 4:470–479PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takx RA, Sucha D, Park J, Leiner T, Hoffmann U (2015) Sublingual nitroglycerin administration in coronary computed tomography angiography: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 25:3536–3542CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brink JA, Morin RL (2012) Size-specific dose estimation for CT: how should it be used and what does it mean? Radiology 265:666–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raff GL, Chinnaiyan KM, Cury RC et al (2014) SCCT guidelines on the use of coronary computed tomographic angiography for patients presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 8:254–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee CI, Enzmann DR (2012) Measuring radiology's value in time saved. J Am Coll Radiol 9:713–717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nieman K, Hoffmann U (2015) Cardiac computed tomography in patients with acute chest pain. Eur Heart J 36:906–914CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mangold S, Wichmann JL, Schoepf UJ et al (2015) Coronary CT angiography in obese patients using 3rd generation dual-source CT: effect of body mass index on image quality. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4161-x Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nasis A, Meredith IT, Sud PS, Cameron JD, Troupis JM, Seneviratne SK (2014) Long-term outcome after CT angiography in patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. Radiology 272:674–682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cury RC, Feuchtner GM, Batlle JC et al (2013) Triage of patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department: implementation of coronary CT angiography in a large urban health care system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:57–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Poon M, Cortegiano M, Abramowicz AJ et al (2013) Associations between routine coronary computed tomographic angiography and reduced unnecessary hospital admissions, length of stay, recidivism rates, and invasive coronary angiography in the emergency department triage of chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 62:543–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Djulbegovic B, Paul A (2011) From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty: indication creep and prevention creep. JAMA 305:2005–2006PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, van Haselen R, Griffin M, Fisher P (2007) The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Antman EM, Cohen M, Bernink PJ et al (2000) The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA 284:835–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pollack CV Jr, Sites FD, Shofer FS, Sease KL, Hollander JE (2006) Application of the TIMI risk score for unstable angina and non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome to an unselected emergency department chest pain population. Acad Emerg Med 13:13–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chase M, Robey JL, Zogby KE, Sease KL, Shofer FS, Hollander JE (2006) Prospective validation of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score in the emergency department chest pain population. Ann Emerg Med 48:252–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Than M, Aldous S, Lord SJ et al (2014) A 2-hour diagnostic protocol for possible cardiac chest pain in the emergency department: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 174:51–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Januzzi JL, Sharma U, Zakroysky P et al (2015) Sensitive troponin assays in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome: Results from the multicenter rule out myocardial infarction using computer assisted tomography II trial. Am Heart J 169:e571CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian B. Ghoshhajra
    • 1
  • Richard A. P. Takx
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pedro V. Staziaki
    • 1
  • Harshna Vadvala
    • 1
  • Phillip Kim
    • 1
  • Tomas G. Neilan
    • 1
    • 9
  • Nandini M. Meyersohn
    • 1
  • Daniel Bittner
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sumbal A. Janjua
    • 1
  • Thomas Mayrhofer
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jeffrey L. Greenwald
    • 5
  • Quyhn A. Truong
    • 1
    • 6
  • Suhny Abbara
    • 1
    • 7
  • David F. M. Brown
    • 8
  • James L. Januzzi
    • 9
  • Sanjeev Francis
    • 1
    • 9
  • John T. Nagurney
    • 8
  • Udo Hoffmann
    • 1
  • on behalf of MGH Emergency Cardiac CTA Program Contributors
  1. 1.Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Department of Radiology (Cardiovascular Imaging) and Division of CardiologyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Department of Medicine 2 - CardiologyUniversity Hospital ErlangenErlangenGermany
  4. 4.School of Business StudiesStralsund University of Applied SciencesStralsundGermany
  5. 5.Department of MedicineMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyWeill Cornell College of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Department Cardiothoracic ImagingUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  8. 8.Department of Emergency MedicineMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  9. 9.Division of CardiologyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations