Assessment of Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): What is the Best Initial Imaging Strategy? (IMAGE-CAD)

March 15, 2017 updated by: Harald Becher

Assessment of Patients With Suspected CAD: What is the Best Initial Imaging Strategy? Cardiac Computed Tomographic Angiography,(CCTA) vs Stress Echocardiography (SE) vs SPECT

Patients who present with chest pain are investigated with tests designed to confirm or exclude the presence of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD), as well as determine risk of poor outcome. It is not known which imaging test would be best when used first for investigating a patient presenting with exertional chest pain. This trial is designed to compare outcomes of the use of coronary CT, stress echocardiography and nuclear perfusion (SPECT) in a pilot study. Patients with no history of coronary disease presenting with chest pain will be randomly assigned to one of the three test modalities as the initial imaging test. The three imaging strategies will be compared regarding the subsequent use of healthcare resources over a year.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Detailed Description

This is a pilot study on imaging strategies for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. The pilot trial aims to answer the question "Which non-invasive test (single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), stress echocardiography or coronary CT angiography (CCTA)) is the best first test in suspected coronary artery disease with respect to patient outcome and downstream health costs?" Patients are randomly assigned to one of the imaging modalities. All imaging and therapeutic procedures in this trial are clinically indicated. The only change from standard patient management is the selection of the initial imaging test. Instead of leaving the selection of the initial imaging test to the referring physician (whose decision is not evidence based), patients presenting with chest pain that fall into the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the study will be randomly assigned to one of the imaging modalities. Patients will also be followed at 1, 6 and 12 months after enrolment to determine outcomes. The three imaging strategies will be compared regarding subsequent use of healthcare resources over a year. In most large cardiac centres, different imaging modalities are performed by different specialists and therefore an operating grant from one imaging specialty rarely covers the costs of other imaging specialties in comparative studies. To ensure a fair comparison between modalities, all modalities have to be equal. Previous comparative trials have been criticized for being biased towards the technique being promoted by the principal investigator. This trial is unique in that the directors of nuclear cardiology, coronary computed tomography and echocardiography are all specialists in their field and are running state-of-the-art services and were all involved in the early planning of this trial and their involvement has ensured trial design meets clinical need. The results of this trial will give insight into planning of a larger multicentre, multi-national study.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

173

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

    • Alberta
      • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G2B7
        • Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute

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

Sampling Method

Probability Sample

Study Population

Men and women without known CAD who present with symptoms suggestive of CAD and require diagnostic/prognostic workup.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adult Age ≥ 18 years
  • Presenting with symptoms suggestive of CAD requiring diagnostic/prognostic workup
  • Suitable for Contrast Stress Echocardiography, SPECT and CCTA
  • Able and willing to provide consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with documented CAD (previous invasive angiography, previous STEMI, previous PCI or CABG)
  • NSTEMI, ACS within 3 months
  • Previous diagnostic imaging tests in the past 6 months
  • Women who are pregnant as evidenced by positive pregnancy test
  • Breast feeding females
  • Significant valvular heart disease (i.e. severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation or severe mitral regurgitation)
  • Hemodynamic instability (blood pressure >210/110 ml/Hg or <90/60 mm/Hg)
  • Unavailability for follow-up
  • Renal insufficiency, eGFR < 30 ml/minute unless on dialysis
  • Known allergy to x-ray or echo contrast agents
  • Weight exceeding specifications of nuclear equipment (>250 Kg)
  • Unable to give informed consent

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

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Stress Echocardiography
Patients will be randomized to one of three imaging modalities. One imaging modality thay can be randomized to is Stress Echocardiography.
SPECT
Patients will be randomized to one of three imaging modalities. One imaging modality thay can be randomized to is Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT)
CCTA
Patients will be randomized to one of three imaging modalities. One imaging modality thay can be randomized to is Cardiac Computed Tomographic Angiography (CCTA)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
healthcare resource utilization
Time Frame: 12 month
12 month

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
referral rates to coronary angiography following three different initial imaging tests in this patient population.
Time Frame: 12 month
12 month
coronary lesions which warrant revascularization (including those where it was warranted but not technically possible).
Time Frame: 12 month
12 month
radiation exposure from the initial and subsequent imaging procedures
Time Frame: 12 month
12 month
total mortality
Time Frame: 12 month
12 month
freedom from angina
Time Frame: 12 month
12 month
non-fatal myocardial infarction
Time Frame: 12 month
12 month
hospital admissions for angina
Time Frame: 12 month
12 month

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Harald Becher, MD,PhD,FRCP, University of Alberta, Alberta Health Services

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

July 1, 2012

Primary Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2017

Study Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 13, 2012

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 14, 2012

First Posted (Estimate)

August 20, 2012

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 16, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 15, 2017

Last Verified

March 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

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.

Clinical Trials on Coronary Artery Disease

Subscribe