Comparison Between Anatomical and Functional Imaging Modalities for Evaluation of Chest Pain in the Emergency Department

Abstract

Evaluation of chest pain in the emergency department (ED) frequently employs a noninvasive strategy, including coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress echocardiography (SE), or myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). We sought to report the real-world experience of utilizing CCTA compared with SE and MPI at an urban hospital ED. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutively enrolled patients presenting with chest pain who had normal or nondiagnostic electrocardiogram (ECG), negative initial troponin-T, at least intermediate risk based on modified Diamond-Forrester criteria, and who underwent CCTA, SE, or MPI based on their individual test eligibility criteria. The primary outcome was ED discharge time. Secondary outcomes included test utilization and 30-days rehospitalization rates. The 2,143 patients who were included (mean age was 56 ± 12 years; 55% women) utilization rate (test performed/eligible) was lower for CCTA (n = 354/1,329) and MPI (n = 530/1,435) compared with SE (n = 1,259/1,650), p <0.001. Mean ED discharge times for both CCTA and SE were 12.5 ± 7.4 versus 16 ± 7.3 hours for MPI (p <0.0001). Patients with SE and CCTA were less likely to undergo coronary angiography (29%, 25%, vs 52% for MPI). There was a 1% cardiac-related 30-days rehospitalization rate in the CCTA group versus 1% in SE and 3% in the MPI group (p <0.01). In conclusion, CCTA and SE were associated with faster ED discharge and lower frequency of diagnostic coronary angiography. Notwithstanding its clinical utility, CCTA was underutilized at our large urban ED setting.