Randomized Prospective Trial on the Cost-Effectiveness of Photon-Counting CT Versus Energy-Integrating Detector CT in Suspected Chronic Coronary Syndrome (COST-PCCT-CCS)

September 15, 2026 updated by: Antonio Esposito, IRCCS San Raffaele

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is recommended as a first-line imaging test in patients with suspected obstructive CAD. However, conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) has limited specificity, particularly in patients with a high coronary calcification burden, because blooming and beam-hardening artifacts can lead to stenosis overestimation and potentially unnecessary downstream diagnostic testing or invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) provides higher spatial resolution, reduced electronic noise, and decreased blooming artifacts compared with conventional EID-CT. These technical advantages may improve the diagnostic assessment of coronary stenoses, reduce false-positive findings, and consequently decrease the need for additional functional testing and unnecessary ICA. Improved diagnostic accuracy may also influence treatment decisions, patient outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization.

This study aims to compare PCD-CT and EID-CT CCTA for the detection and quantification of CAD in a real-world clinical setting. In addition to diagnostic performance, the study will evaluate the impact of the two imaging strategies on subsequent diagnostic and therapeutic management, healthcare resource utilization, costs, and clinical outcomes. Patients will be followed from the date of the index CCTA examination for up to two years. Healthcare costs will be estimated using national and regional reimbursement tariffs of the Italian public healthcare system.

Study Overview

Status

Active, not recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is the first-line imaging test for patients with suspected obstructive CAD. However, its main limitation is the relatively low and variable specificity and positive predictive value across different studies, especially in patients with high calcified coronary plaque burden due to blooming and beam-hardening artifacts that can lead to the overestimation of the degree of coronary artery stenosis, reduced specificity, and, consequently, increased rate of downstream functional imaging tests or diagnostic invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Photon-Counting Detector-Computed Tomography (PCD-CT) represents an important evolution in the CT technology introduced in the clinical practice in the last years, but still with a limited diffusion due to the high purchase cost of the scanners. In the context of CAD evaluation, the two modalities differ in spatial resolution, blooming artifacts, and electronic noise levels, representing distinct technical approaches to diagnostic imaging accuracy. Recent studies demonstrate that these technical advantages may translate into a higher diagnostic accuracy of PCD-CT in differentiating functional significant stenosis from non-significant stenosis, with a lower rate of false positive results and higher overall diagnostic accuracy. This increase in diagnostic accuracy with reduction in false positive results may be associated to a reduction in downstream functional tests performed after a PCD-CT CCTA compared with an EID-CT CCTA, as well as a decrease in unnecessary invasive coronary angiographies resulting from false-positive CCTA findings. Moreover, a more precise diagnosis may also translate into more appropriate treatment decisions and potential prognostic benefits. These potential advantages may ultimately lead to a reduction in downstream healthcare expenditures when using PCD-CT CCTA. However, the impact of these differences on clinical decision-making and healthcare resource utilization remains to be fully established in real-world settings. Thus, the investigator proposes to compare the diagnostic performance of PCD-CT performed with a NAEOTOM Alpha photon-counting CT scanner (Siemens Healthineers, Germany) and EID-CT performed with a SOMATOM Definition Flash (Siemens Healthineers, Germany) in the identification and quantification of CAD. Moreover, the investigator aims to assess the cost-effectiveness and the prognostic impact of PCD-CT compared to EID-CT in CAD diagnosis and management according to 2024 ESC Guidelines, collecting all index data related to the patients' clinical history from the day of the CCTA examination up to two years afterward, and estimating healthcare costs according to the national and regional reimbursement tariffs of the public health system for all healthcare services delivered.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

630

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Milano
      • Milan, Milano, Italy, 20132
        • Advanced Imaging for Personalized Medicine/Radiologia DiMer

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • clinical indication to perform CCTA for CAD assessment according to 2024 ESC Guidelines

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Refusal to participate in the study
  • Age <18 years old
  • Severe reduction in eGFR (<30 mL/min)

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Energy Integrating Detector CT (EID-CT)

Participants undergo CCTA performed using Energy Integrating Detector CT (EID-CT).

Patients undergoing CCTA on EID-CT

Active Comparator: Photon Counting Detector CT (PCD-CT)

Participants undergo CCTA performed using Photon Counting CT (PCD-CT).

Undergoing CCTA with PCD-CT

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Positive predictive value (PPV) of CCTA for the detection of obstructive CAD, using ICA as the reference standard
Time Frame: Baseline diagnostic workup

To compare the positive predictive value (PPV) of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) performed using PCD-CT versus EID-CT, when used according to the clinical indications defined by the 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes.

Baseline diagnostic workup

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
To evaluate the cost effectiveness comparing two CT platforms implemented in routine clinical practice in the diagnostic workup of suspected chronic coronary syndromes, according to the 2024 ESC Guidelines.
Time Frame: Up to 3 years after CCTA examination

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per correctly diagnosed patient based on healthcare resource utilization and diagnostic outcomes. For the calculation of the ICER true negative will be considered all patients with negative CCTA without events (MACEs) over the 3 years FU.

Up to 3 years after CCTA examination

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

September 1, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

September 30, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

September 30, 2029

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 9, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 15, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

September 21, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

September 21, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 15, 2026

Last Verified

September 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • COST-PCCT-CCS Trial

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

Only data used in the results publication will be shared under request

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.