Meta-analysis of coronary computed tomography angiography versus standard of care strategy for the evaluation of low risk chest pain: Are randomized controlled trials and cohort studies showing the same evidence?

Background Randomized control trials (RCTs) have established the use of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) for the evaluation of low to intermediate risk patients presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department (ED). However, concerns remain regarding the downstream resource utilization and the clinical impact of such strategy.

Methods We performed a meta-analysis of existing studies to compare CCTA to the standard of care (SOC) strategies in the low to intermediate risk chest pain patients. We abstracted the reported incidence of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the total number of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and subsequent revascularization procedures, the rates of hospital readmissions and repeat ED visits. We stratified the results according to the type of the studies (randomized or not) and used random effect analysis for the studied outcomes.

Conclusion CCTA use in the ED for the triage of low to intermediate risk patients reduces the risk of future ACS and subsequent ED visits for chest pain.

Results Four RCTs and 3 case-control studies with 3306 patients undergoing CCTA and 2752 assigned to SOC were included in the analysis. Following the index visit, we observed a significant reduction in the risk of ACS (RR: 0.26, 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.87; p = 0.03) and in the rates of repeat ED visits (RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.94; p = 0.03). In addition, a trend toward less hospital readmission (p = 0.07) was noted. There was no difference in ICA (p = 0.99) but an increase in revascularization procedures (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.94; p = 0.01).