CT myocardial perfusion imaging (CTP) represents one of the newly developed CT-based techniques but its cost-effectiveness in the clinical pathway is undefined. The aim of the study is to evaluate the usefulness of combined evaluation of coronary anatomy and myocardial perfusion in intermediate to high-risk patients for suspected CAD or with known disease in terms of clinical decision-making, resource utilization and outcomes in a broad variety of geographic areas and patient subgroups.
The use of cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is usually suggested in low to intermediate risk for its diagnostic and prognostic role to rule out CAD with low radiation exposure. In the setting of intermediate to high risk patients, the addition of functional information is prognostically useful and, in patients with previous history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), functional strategy has been shown to be more cost-effective as compared to anatomical assessment CT myocardial perfusion imaging (CTP) represents one of the newly developed CT-based techniques, combining both anatomical and functional evaluation of CAD in a single imaging modality. More recently, stress CTP was shown to provide additional diagnostic value as compared to CCTA alone in intermediate to high risk patients. The purpose of this study will be to evaluate the usefulness and impact of combined evaluation of coronary artery anatomy and myocardial perfusion with CCTA+CTP in intermediate to high risk patients for suspected CAD or with known disease in terms of clinical decision-making, resource utilization, and outcomes in a broad variety of geographic areas and patient subgroups. CTP-PRO study is a cooperative, international, multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled study evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a CCTA+CTP strategy versus usual care in intermediate to high risk patients with suspected or known CAD who undergo clinically indicated diagnostic evaluation. Patients will be screened for study eligibility. Patients meeting all selection criteria will be asked to sign an informed consent document prior to undergoing any study-specific evaluation; then a structured interview will be performed and a clinical history obtained, assessing the presence of common cardiac risk factors, drug therapy (focus on statin, aspirin and/or antiplatelet agent use) and symptoms (typical or atypical angina, to estimate the pre-test likelihood of CAD). Upon completion of the screening procedure and enrollment, the patients will be randomized 1:1 to the CT-based strategy (Group A) or usual care (Group B). Patient follow-up will be performed at 1 year (± 1 month) and 2 years (± 1 month) by trained interviewers who check medical records or by phone interview collecting the following information: downstream testing; overall radiation exposure; outcomes; cost-effectiveness estimation. The primary endpoint of the study is the reclassification rate of CCTA in group B due to the addition of CTP. The secondary endpoint will be the comparison between group A and group B in terms of non-invasive and invasive downstream testing, prevalence of obstructive CAD at ICA, revascularization, cumulative ED and overall cost during the follow-up at 1- and 2-years. The tertiary endpoint will be the comparison between each group in terms of MACE and cost-effectiveness at 1- and 2-years.
When judged indicated, functional assessment with stress CTP perfusion will be performed on top of CCTA.
(a) functional non-invasive tests (stress ECG, or imaging-based tests such as Stress Echo, Stress CMR, SPECT or PET) as a gatekeeper for ICA; (b) direct referral to ICA.
Centro Cardiologico Monzino IRCCS
Milan, MI, Italy
Reclassification rate of CCTA in group B due to the addition of CTP
For each enrolled patient in whom both CCTA and stress CTP will be performed, the endpoint review committee will use data from coronary CTA and CTP, along with the clinical data to determine the management plan using the following criteria: (a) optimal medical therapy, (b) more non-invasive information required, (c) invasive evaluation required, (d) revascularization treatment (PCI or CABG or hybrid treatment).
Time frame: 30 days.
Downstream non-invasive testing
Comparison between group A and group B in terms of number of non-invasive downstream testing (Exercise EKG, Stress-Echo, SPECT, Stress CMR, PET) or invasive testing (invasive coronary angiography) performed after the randomization.
Time frame: 1- and 2-years.
Downstream invasive testing
Comparison between group A and group B in terms of number of downstream invasive testing (invasive coronary angiography) performed after the randomization.
Time frame: 1- and 2-years.
Prevalence of obstructive CAD at ICA
Comparison between group A and group B in terms of number of patients with obstructive CAD at ICA.
Time frame: 1- and 2-years.
Revascularization
Comparison between group A and group B in terms of number of patients treated with revascularization (PCI or CABG or hybrid treatment).
Time frame: 1- and 2-years.
Effective Dose
Comparison between group A and group B in terms of cumulative Effective Dose (ED), measured in mSv, due to non-invasive or invasive testing performed after randomization.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
2,000
Time frame: 1- and 2-years.
Overall costs related to downstream diagnostic tests.
Comparison between group A and group B in terms of overall costs of downstream diagnostic tests (sum of costs of all diagnostic tests performed after randomization), expressed in Dollars, according to local reimbursement.
Time frame: 1- and 2-years.