ArticleCureus2022
Efficacy of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Versus Nuclear Perfusion Stress in Preventing Downstream Imaging and Prolonged Inpatient Length of Stay in Low to Medium Risk Patients With Chest Pain.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The first-line imaging for low to medium-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with stable chest pain is often a matter of debate. Chest pain is the second most common presentation to the emergency department. Non-invasive imaging has been useful in assisting in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Aim The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Nuclear Perfusion Stress and Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) performed in low to medium-risk patients and how they led to prolonged hospitalization and downstream testing. Materials and methods A total of 519 patients were selected for chart review using the following criteria: admitted for chest pain and older than 18 years of age. Those who presented with STEMI (ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) or non-(N)STEMI were excluded. Among these patients, four patients were excluded since their initial test was neither a CCTA nor SPECT Nuclear (NM) Perfusion Stress test. Another 30 patients were excluded based on HEART score (a clinical tool to stratify the risk of major adverse cardiac events) >7 and 111 patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 were excluded. A total of 374 patients underwent analysis. Results Univariate data analysis of 374 patients demonstrated a higher percentage of patients with HEART scores 0-3 underwent CCTA (51.6% vs. 31.8% p=0.0250) when compared to patients with SPECT NM perfusion. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that the difference in length of stay between SPECT NM perfusion stress and CCTA was significant, patients with the CCTA test were less likely to have a length of stay ≥24 hours (odds ratio {OR}=0.41, p=0.0465) compared to patients with NM perfusion stress test. Conclusion This retrospective cohort study demonstrated that patients who underwent CCTA upon chest pain admission were more likely to have a decreased length of stay time to less than 24 hours.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.