Trial reportCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2025
Economic Outcomes With Precision Diagnostic Testing Versus Usual Testing in Stable Chest Pain: Results From the PRECISE Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03702244 (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization), which is not on this 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.
Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe PRECISE (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization) demonstrated that a precision diagnostic strategy reduced the primary composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or catheterization without obstructive coronary artery disease by 65% in patients with nonacute chest pain compared with usual testing. Medical cost was a prespecified secondary end point.
methodsPRECISE randomized 2103 patients between December 2018 and May 2021 to usual testing or a precision strategy that used deferred testing for the lowest risk patients (20%) and coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve for the remainder. Resource use consumption data were collected from all study participants and hospital cost data from US participants (n=1125) to estimate total medical costs. The primary and secondary economic outcomes were total costs at 12 months and at 45 days, respectively, from the US health care system perspective. The mean cost differences between the 2 strategies were reported by intention-to-treat.
resultsAt 45 days, total costs were similar between the precision strategy and usual testing (mean difference, $182 [95% CI, -$555 to $661]). By 12 months, percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery had been performed in 7.2% and 2.0% of precision strategy patients and 3.5% and 1.7% of usual testing patients, respectively. At 1 year, precision strategy costs were $5299 versus $4821 for usual testing (mean difference, $478 [95% CI, -$889 to $1437];
conclusionsIn the PRECISE trial, the precision strategy, a risk-based approach endorsed by current clinical practice guidelines, improved the clinical efficiency of testing and had similar costs to usual testing at 45 days and a nonsignificant $478 cost difference at 1 year. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03702244.
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.