Comparative diagnostic yield and 3-month outcomes of "triple rule-out" and standard protocol coronary CT angiography in the evaluation of acute chest pain.

BACKGROUND: "Triple rule-out" CT angiography simultaneously evaluates coronary artery disease, pulmonary embolism, and aortic dissection in a single imaging examination. However, the clinical outcomes of this approach are unknown. OBJECTIVE: Using standard cardiac CT angiography as a reference, this study was performed to describe the diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing triple rule-out in clinical practice. METHODS: We identified consecutive patients at 2 institutions undergoing triple rule-out or cardiac CT angiography for acute chest pain. The primary outcome was a composite diagnostic yield consisting of coronary artery diameter stenosis >50%, pulmonary embolism, and aortic dissection. Other reported outcomes included radiation dose, downstream resource use, and 90-day clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 2068 patients (272 triple rule-out and 1796 cardiac CT angiograms), the composite diagnostic yield was 14.3% with triple rule-out and 16.3% with cardiac CT (P = 0.41) and was driven by the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (13.2% triple rule-out versus 16.1% cardiac CT, P = 0.22). The diagnostic yield for pulmonary embolism was low (1.1% triple rule-out and 0.2% cardiac CT, P = 0.052) and no aortic dissections were found in either group. Compared with cardiac CT, the triple rule-out approach was associated with higher radiation exposure (12.0 ± 5.6 mSv versus 8.2 ± 4.0 mSv, P < 0.0001), a greater incidence of subsequent emergency center cardiac evaluations (5.9% versus 2.5%, P = 0.0017), and more downstream pulmonary embolism-protocol CT angiography (3.3% versus 0.9%, P = 0.0034). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute chest pain, a triple rule-out approach resulted in higher radiation exposure compared with cardiac CT, but was not associated with improved diagnostic yield, reduced clinical events, or diminished downstream resource use.

CHADS(2) score is predictive of left atrial thrombus on precardioversion transesophageal echocardiography in atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to determine: 1) if the CHADS(2) score correlates with left atrial (LA) or left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus on pre-cardioversion transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); and 2) what, if any, components of the CHADS(2) score are most important in predicting LA/LAA thrombus. BACKGROUND: It is unknown if CHADS(2) score, a marker of thromboembolic risk in NVAF, accurately predicts LA/LAA thrombus on pre-cardioversion TEE. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients undergoing precardioversion TEE for NVAF at a tertiary hospital. TEE reports were reviewed for presence of LA/LAA thrombus. Using medical records and an ICD-9 coding database, a CHADS(2) score was derived, and the association between CHADS(2) and thrombus was evaluated with Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square. The relation between the singular components of CHADS(2) and thrombus were analyzed using Pearson's Chi-Square. RESULTS: In 643 consecutive patients undergoing pre-cardioversion TEE, LA/LAA thrombus was identified in 46 (7.2 %). A strong association was present between CHADS(2)score and LA/LAA thrombus (p = 0.0005). No thrombi were identified in patients with CHADS(2) = 0. Among 46 patients with thrombus, all (100%) had CHF. Of the singular components, CHF was the only factor independently associated with thrombus (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In non-valvular atrial fibrillation, CHADS(2) is strongly associated with LA thrombus on TEE. Our findings suggest pre-cardioversion TEE may be unnecessary if the CHADS(2) score = 0. Of the components of the CHADS(2) score, CHF was the only independently associated risk factor which correlated with LA/LAA thrombus.