1 / 25

One Year Outcomes and Resource Utilization in ACRIN PA 4005: Multicenter RCT of Rapid Rule-Out Strategy of CCTA vs Tra

One Year Outcomes and Resource Utilization in ACRIN PA 4005: Multicenter RCT of Rapid Rule-Out Strategy of CCTA vs Traditional Care . Judd E. Hollander, MD Professor Clinical Research Director . Funding & Disclosures. Funding

oona
Download Presentation

One Year Outcomes and Resource Utilization in ACRIN PA 4005: Multicenter RCT of Rapid Rule-Out Strategy of CCTA vs Tra

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. One Year Outcomes and Resource Utilization in ACRIN PA 4005:Multicenter RCT of Rapid Rule-Out Strategy of CCTA vs Traditional Care Judd E. Hollander, MD Professor Clinical Research Director

  2. Funding & Disclosures • Funding • PA Department of Health (SAP4100042725). The Department specifically disclaims responsibility for any analyses, interpretations or conclusions. • American College of Radiology (ACR) Foundation • Organized & coordinated by ACRIN which receives funding from the National Cancer Institute (U01 CA079778 and U01 CA080098). • Other Research Funding • Abbott, Alere, Brahms, NIH, PCORI, Siemens • Consulting • Behring, Janssen, Luitpold, Radiometer

  3. Introduction • Approximately 8 million ED visits for chest pain each year in the US • 60% admitted • 5-15% ACS rate • 85-95% do not have cardiac cause for symptoms • Historically, 2-5% missed AMI rate

  4. Introduction • Conservative admission protocols • Cost $8-10 billion per year • Contributes to hospital crowding • Leads to adverse outcomes in other cohorts • May or may not help the “rule out” ACS patients • More efficient options desired

  5. ED Specific Studies • Multiple small single arm studies • Hollander et al. • 500+ patient observational trial • ROMICAT 1 • 300+ patient observation trial • Small RCT’s • Goldstein, Gallagher • Larger RCT’s • CT STAT, ACRIN 4005, ROMICAT 2

  6. ACRIN PA 4005 30-day Outcomes • Patients with negative CCTA can be safely discharged (0% event rate, 95%CI, 0.57) • CCTA more efficient • Higher discharge rate • More rapid discharge • More patients diagnosed with CAD (9 v 3%) • Higher rate of positive cardiac catheterization • No increased rate of revascularization • No difference in 30 day death or AMI

  7. Objectives • To compare health care utilization during 1 year post-randomization • Imaging, intervention, repeat ED visits, re-admission • To compare major cardiac events during 1 year post randomization for participants not found to have CAD during index visit

  8. Methods • Study design • Randomized controlled trial (CCTA 2:1) • Setting • 5 sites • Patient Enrollment • Not limited to times when testing available • Mostly in ED • Could be in observation before testing decision

  9. Methods: Patients • Inclusion • > age 30 • TIMI score 0-2 • No ischemia on ECG • Exclusion • Clearly noncardiac pain • Comorbidity requiring admission • Contraindications to CCTA • Post randomization • CrCl < 60 or PE protocol CT done

  10. Methods: Testing • CCTA • Noncontrast calcium scoring • Contrast angiography • B-blockers and NTG per local protocol • All readers ACC/AHA level 3 • Local interpretations used clinically • Stress testing • Imaging or not was a local decision

  11. Methods: Data Collected • Standardized Guideline Core Criteria • History • Presence of chest pain at ED presentation • Associated symptoms • Initial ECG • TIMI risk score • Cardiac markers

  12. Methods: Follow-up • Direct patient contact • Medical record review • Presenting institution • Neighboring institution • Home visits • SSDI

  13. Methods: Outcomes • Resource utilization • Revascularization • Cardiac testing • ED visits • Re-admission • One year outcomes • Death • Adjudicated for cardiac cause • Nonfatal AMI • Adjudicated

  14. Results: Patient Characteristics

  15. One Year Safety • Enrollment through one year

  16. One Year Safety • Patients not found to have CAD

  17. One Year Resource Use • After Hospital Discharge

  18. Stratified by CAD

  19. Discussion • Coronary CTA is accurate • Compares well to cardiac catheterization • Normal or minimal disease on cath • Predicts freedom from events at 30 days • A negative CCTA (<50% maximal stenosis) predicts freedom from events at one year

  20. Discussion • In the year following discharge there was no increase in resource utilization • Diagnostic testing for CAD • Echocardiogram • Medication use • But resources applied more appropriately since patients more likely to have determination of underlying disease

  21. Limitations • Powered off primary aim • UL of 95% CI being less than one percent in patients with negative CCTA • Cannot exclude possibility that we did not detect small but real difference between groups

  22. Conclusions • A negative CCTA predicts low risk of 1 year death, AMI or revascularization • CCTA does not increase resource utilization • Shifts resources to where they are most useful • More disease identified and treated • More patients without disease not treated

  23. Acknowledgements • Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania • Site Investigators: Judd E. Hollander, MD Harold I. Litt, MD, PhD • Research Coordinators: Emily Barrows, Jeffrey Le, Shannon Marcoon, Julie Pitts, RN, Scott Steingall, RT • Penn State University Medical Center at Hershey • Site Investigators: James M. Leaming, MD, Harjit Singh, MD, Michelle A. Fischer, MD, Steven Ettinger, MD, Carlos Jamis-Dow, MD, Kevin Moser, PhD • Research Coordinators: Swati Shah, Kevin Gardner, RN, Russell Dicristina, Susan Oskorus • Penn Presbyterian Medical Center • Site Investigators: Laurence Gavin, MD, Anna Marie Chang, MD • Research Coordinators: Christopher Decker, Michael Green, Katie O’Conor, Angela Roach, Kristy Walsh, Max Wayne

  24. Acknowledgements • Wake Forest University • Site Investigators: J. Jeffrey Carr, MD, MSc, Daniel W. Entrikin, MD, Kim Askew, MD, James W. Hoekstra, MD, Simon Mahler, MD, Chadwick D. Miller, MD, MS • Research Coordinators: Denise Boyles, Stephanie Bradshaw, Mark Collin, Erin Harper, Lisa Hinshaw, MS, Jane Kilkenny, Megan Koonts, Lori Triplett, RN • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center • Site Investigators: Charissa B. Pacella, MD, Joan M. Lacomis, MD and Christopher R. Deible, MD, PhD • Research Coordinators: Sara Vandruff, Barbara Early, Tina Vita, Dawn McBride • Brown University: Biostatistical/research design • Constantine Gatsonis, PhD, Brad Snyder, MS, SanaaBoudhar, MS, Patricia Fox, MS and Erin Greco, MS

  25. Acknowledgements • Data Safety Monitoring Board • David Bluemke, MD, PhD (Chair), National Institute of Health; Todd A. Alonzo, PhD, University of Southern California; Jon F. Merz, MBA, JD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania; Herbert Y. Kressel, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. • Adjudication Committee • W. Frank Peacock, MD, Cleveland Clinic; Robert Hendel, MD, University of Miami • Administration and Oversight – ACRIN PA • Cynthia Olson, Anthony Levering, Cynthia Price, Maria Oh, Patricia Blair, Martha Heckl, Charles Apgar, Mary Kelly, Mitchell Schnall MD, PhD

More Related