Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38367031›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2024

Patient satisfaction with coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography: results of a single-center randomized trial.

Maria Bosserdt, Viktoria Wieske, Fabian Knebel, Mahmoud M A Mohamed, Sarah Feger, Marc Dewey, Eva Schönenberger

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maria Bosserdt *Departments of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Viktoria Wieske *Departments of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Fabian KnebelDepartments of Cardiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Mahmoud M A MohamedDepartments of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Sarah FegerDepartments of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Marc DeweyDepartments of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. dewey@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4402-2733
Eva SchönenbergerDepartments of Anesthesiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DE 1361/14-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBecause there is evidence for a clinical benefit of using coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography instead of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), we ascertained if patient satisfaction could represent an important barrier to implementation of coronary CT in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 329 patients with suspected CAD and clinical indication for ICA were randomly assigned to undergo either CT or ICA for guiding treatment. Satisfaction for both groups was assessed by patient questionnaire completed twice, ≥24 h after CT or ICA, and at follow-up after a median of 3.7 years. Assessment included preparation, concern, comfort, helplessness, pain, willingness to undergo tests again, overall satisfaction, and preference. Pearson's chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used.

resultsOverall, 91% of patients undergoing CT (152/167) and 86% undergoing ICA completed assessment (140/162, p = 0.19). Patients reported being significantly better prepared for CT, less concerned about the test, and felt less helpless than during ICA (all: p < 0.001). Subjective pain (horizontal nonmarked visual analogue scale) was significantly lower for CT (6.9 ± 14.7) than for ICA (17.1 ± 22.7; p < 0.001). At follow-up, significantly more patients in the CT group reported very good satisfaction with communication of findings compared with the ICA group (p < 0.001) and 92% would recommend the institution to someone referred for the same examination.

conclusionsResults from our single-center randomized study show very good satisfaction with coronary CT compared to ICA. Thus, superior acceptance of CT should be considered in shared decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This evaluation of patient satisfaction in a randomized study shows that patients' preference is in line with the clinical benefit provided by CT and also suggests to prefer a CT-first strategy in suspected coronary artery disease. KEY POINTS: • Subjective pain was significantly lower for coronary CT angiography than for invasive coronary angiography and patients felt better prepared and less concerned about CT. • Patients were overall more satisfied with coronary CT angiography than invasive coronary angiography in a randomized controlled trial. • After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, more patients in the CT group indicated very good satisfaction with the communication of findings and with the examination itself.

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseasePatient SatisfactionAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesComputed tomography angiographyCoronary angiographyCoronary artery diseasePatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID38367031
PMCPMC11364721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.