Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Feb 1;178(2):212-219.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7360.

Noninvasive Cardiac Testing vs Clinical Evaluation Alone in Acute Chest Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the ROMICAT-II Randomized Clinical Trial

Samuel W Reinhardt  1 , Chien-Jung Lin  2 , Eric Novak  2 , David L Brown  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Noninvasive Cardiac Testing vs Clinical Evaluation Alone in Acute Chest Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the ROMICAT-II Randomized Clinical Trial

Samuel W Reinhardt et al. JAMA Intern Med. .

Abstract

Importance: The incremental benefit of noninvasive testing in addition to clinical evaluation (history, physical examination, an electrocardiogram [ECG], and biomarker assessment) vs clinical evaluation alone for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute chest pain is unknown.

Objective: To examine differences in outcomes with clinical evaluation and noninvasive testing (coronary computed tomographic angiography [CCTA] or stress testing) vs clinical evaluation alone.

Design, setting, and participants: This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the randomized multicenter Rule Out Myocardial Ischemia/Infarction by Computer Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT-II) trial. Data for 1000 patients who presented with chest pain to the EDs at 9 hospitals in the United States were evaluated.

Interventions: Clinical evaluation plus noninvasive testing (CCTA or stress test) vs clinical evaluation alone.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome was length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included hospital admission, direct ED discharge, downstream testing, rates of invasive coronary angiography, revascularization, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), repeated ED visit or hospitalization for recurrent chest pain at 28 days, and cost. Safety end points were missed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and cumulative radiation exposure during the index visit and follow-up period.

Results: Of the 1000 patients randomized, 118 patients (12%) (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [7.8]; 49 [42%] were female) did not undergo noninvasive testing, whereas 882 (88%) (mean [SD] age, 54.4 [8.14] years; 419 [48%] were female) received CCTA or stress testing. There was no difference in baseline characteristics or clinical presentation between groups. Patients who underwent clinical evaluation alone experienced a shorter LOS (20.3 vs 27.9 hours; P < .001), lower rates of diagnostic testing (P < .001) and angiography (2% vs 11%; P < .001), lower median costs ($2261.50 vs $2584.30; P = .009), and less cumulative radiation exposure (0 vs 9.9 mSv; P < .001) during the 28-day study period. Lack of testing was associated with a lower rate of diagnosis of ACS (0% vs 9%; P < .001) and less coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the index visit (0% vs 10%; P < .001, and 0% vs 4%; P = .02, respectively). There was no difference in rates of PCI (2% vs 5%; P = .15), coronary artery bypass surgery (0% vs 1%; P = .61), return ED visits (5.8% vs 2.8%; P = .08), or MACE (2% vs 1%; P = .24) in the 28-day follow-up period.

Conclusions and relevance: In patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain, negative biomarkers, and a nonischemic ECG result, noninvasive testing with CCTA or stress testing leads to longer LOS, more downstream testing, more radiation exposure, and greater cost without an improvement in clinical outcomes.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01084239.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Standardized Differences in Baseline Characteristics Between Patients Receiving Clinical Evaluation and Noninvasive Testing vs Clinical Evaluation Alone
Standardized differences in baseline characteristics between patients receiving clinical evaluation and noninvasive testing vs clinical evaluation alone before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). CAD/ACS/MI indicates coronary artery disease/acute coronary syndrome/myocardial infarction; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HF, heart failure; PVD, peripheral vascular disease.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Length of Stay in the Hospital of Patients Receiving Clinical Evaluation and Noninvasive Testing vs Those Receiving Clinical Evaluation Alone
A, The proportion of patients discharged at different times from the index visit. The shaded area represents the scale depicted in panel B. B, The proportion of patients discharged during the first 100 hours on the x-axis to highlight the separation between the curves.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, et al. ; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction); American College of Emergency Physicians; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; Society for Academic Emergency Medicine . ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(7):e1-e157. - PubMed
    1. Owens PL, Barrett ML, Gibson TB, Andrews RM, Weinick RM, Mutter RL. Emergency department care in the United States: a profile of national data sources. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(2):150-165. - PubMed
    1. Pope JH, Aufderheide TP, Ruthazer R, et al. . Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(16):1163-1170. - PubMed
    1. Katz DA, Williams GC, Brown RL, et al. . Emergency physicians’ fear of malpractice in evaluating patients with possible acute cardiac ischemia. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(6):525-533. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kline JA, Jones AE, Shapiro NI, et al. . Multicenter, randomized trial of quantitative pretest probability to reduce unnecessary medical radiation exposure in emergency department patients with chest pain and dyspnea. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(1):66-73. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data