Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMorgan-Hughes, G
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, MC
dc.contributor.authorLoudon, M
dc.contributor.authorRoobottom, CA
dc.contributor.authorVeitch, A
dc.contributor.authorVan Lingen, R
dc.contributor.authorHolloway, B
dc.contributor.authorBellenger, N
dc.contributor.authorSchmitt, M
dc.contributor.authorBull, R
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-20T12:50:15Z
dc.date.issued2021-02-23
dc.identifier.issn2053-3624
dc.identifier.issn2053-3624
dc.identifier.othere001597
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/17867
dc.description.abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>We surveyed UK practice and compliance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) ‘recent-onset chest pain’ guidance (Clinical Guideline 95, 2016) as a service quality initiative. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility and efficacy of CT coronary angiography (CTCA), NICE-guided investigation compliance, invasive coronary angiography (ICA) use and revascularisation.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A prospective analysis was conducted in nine UK centres between January 2018 and March 2020. The reporter decided whether the CTCA was diagnostic. Coronary artery disease was recorded with the Coronary Artery Disease–Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS). Local electronic records and picture archiving/communication systems were used to collect data regarding functional testing, ICA and revascularisation. Duplication of coronary angiography without revascularisation was taken as a surrogate for ICA overuse.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>5293 patients (mean age, 57±12 years; body mass index, 29±6 kg/m²; 50% men) underwent CTCA, with a 96% diagnostic scan rate. 618 (12%) underwent ICA, of which 48% (298/618) did not receive revascularisation. 3886 (73%) had CAD-RADS 0–2, with 1% (35/3886) undergoing ICA, of which 94% (33/35) received ICA as a second-line test. 547 (10%) had CAD-RADS 3, with 23% (125/547) undergoing ICA, of which 88% (110/125) chose ICA as a second-line test, with 26% (33/125) leading to revascularisation. For 552 (10%) CAD-RADS 4 and 91 (2%) CAD-RADS 5 patients, ICA revascularisation rates were 64% (221/345) and 74% (46/62), respectively.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>While CTCA for recent-onset chest pain assessment has been shown to be a robust test, which negates the need for further investigation in three-quarters of patients, subsequent ICA overuse remains with almost half of these procedures not leading to revascularisation.</jats:p></jats:sec>

dc.format.extente001597-e001597
dc.format.mediumPrint
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group
dc.subjectCT angiography
dc.subjectchest pain
dc.subjectcoronary angiography
dc.subjectdiagnostic imaging
dc.subjectAdolescent
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectComputed Tomography Angiography
dc.subjectCoronary Angiography
dc.subjectCoronary Artery Disease
dc.subjectElectrocardiography
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectFollow-Up Studies
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectPredictive Value of Tests
dc.subjectProspective Studies
dc.subjectYoung Adult
dc.titleDownstream testing after CT coronary angiography: time for a rethink?
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeMulticenter Study
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33622963
plymouth.issue1
plymouth.volume8
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalOpen Heart
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/openhrt-2021-001597
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA01 Clinical Medicine
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA01 Clinical Medicine/UoA01 Clinical Medicine
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-02-08
dc.rights.embargodate2021-9-21
dc.identifier.eissn2053-3624
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1136/openhrt-2021-001597
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-02-23
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV