Comparative effectiveness of initial computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography in women and men with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease: Multicentre randomised trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Dokumenter

  • Fulltext

    Forlagets udgivne version, 750 KB, PDF-dokument

  • The DISCHARGE Trial Group

Objective: To assess the comparative effectiveness of computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography in women and men with stable chest pain suspected to be caused by coronary artery disease. Design: Prospective, multicentre, randomised pragmatic trial. Setting: Hospitals at 26 sites in 16 European countries. Participants: 2002 (56.2%) women and 1559 (43.8%) men (total of 3561 patients) with suspected coronary artery disease referred for invasive coronary angiography on the basis of stable chest pain and a pre-test probability of obstructive coronary artery disease of 10-60%. Intervention: Both women and men were randomised 1:1 (with stratification by gender and centre) to a strategy of either computed tomography or invasive coronary angiography as the initial diagnostic test (1019 and 983 women, and 789 and 770 men, respectively), and an intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Randomised allocation could not be blinded, but outcomes were assessed by investigators blinded to randomisation group. Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). Key secondary endpoints were an expanded MACE composite (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, transient ischaemic attack, or major procedure related complication) and major procedure related complications. Results: Follow-up at a median of 3.5 years was available in 98.9% (1979/2002) of women and in 99.0% (1544/1559) of men. No statistically significant gender interaction was found for MACE (P=0.29), the expanded MACE composite (P=0.45), or major procedure related complications (P=0.11). In both genders, the rate of MACE did not differ between the computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography groups. In men, the expanded MACE composite endpoint occurred less frequently in the computed tomography group than in the invasive coronary angiography group (22 (2.8%) v 41 (5.3%); hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.87). In women, the risk of having a major procedure related complication was lower in the computed tomography group than in the invasive coronary angiography group (3 (0.3%) v 21 (2.1%); hazard ratio 0.14, 0.04 to 0.46). Conclusion: This study found no evidence for a difference between women and men in the benefit of using computed tomography rather than invasive coronary angiography as the initial diagnostic test for the management of stable chest pain in patients with an intermediate pre-test probability of coronary artery disease. An initial computed tomography scan was associated with fewer major procedure related complications in women and a lower frequency of the expanded MACE composite in men. Trial registration: NCT02400229ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02400229.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummere071133
TidsskriftThe BMJ
ISSN0959-8146
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2022

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
The study design, methods, and statistical analysis plan, including the prespecified gender related analysis of the DISCHARGE trial, have previously been published. Briefly, DISCHARGE is an investigator initiated, pragmatic, assessor blinded, parallel group, randomised, multicentre study of the comparative effectiveness of computed tomography guided versus invasive coronary angiography guided management of patients with stable chest pain and a calculated intermediate pre-test probability of obstructive coronary artery disease clinically referred for invasive coronary angiography. The study was funded by the European Union (EU-FP7 Framework Programme) and was conducted at 26 clinical centres in 16 European countries (1 Austria, 1 Czech Republic, 1 Denmark, 1 Finland, 3 Germany, 1 Hungary, 1 Republic of Ireland, 2 Italy, 1 Latvia, 1 Lithuania, 2 Poland, 1 Portugal, 2 Romania, 2 Serbia, 2 Spain, and 4 UK), using standard operating procedures and strict quality control according to good clinical practice. Local or national ethics committees approved the study at each participating centre. The study was conducted and reported according to the CONSORT standards. The checklist is included in web appendix 1.

Funding Information:
Funding: This study was funded by grants from the EU-FP7 Framework Program (FP 2007-2013, EC-GA 603266) to MD and others (Berlin Institute of Health (grant from Digital Health Accelerator); British Heart Foundation (Centre of Research Excellence RE/18/6/34217); Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen (grant and non-financial support); and German Research Foundation (grants from Radiomics Priority Programme: DE 1361/19-1 [428222922] and 20-1 [428223139] in SPP2177/1) and grants from graduate program BIOQIC (GRK 2260/1 [289347353])). The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019.

ID: 346535245