Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2025
Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
Economic Outcomes With Precision Diagnostic Testing Versus Usual Testing in Stable Chest Pain: Results From the
Derek S Chew1, Daniel B Mark2,3, Yanhong Li2
1Libin Cardiovascular Institute and O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada (D.S.C.).
Background:
The 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.
Methods:
PRECISE 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.
Results:
At 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]; P=0.43). Precision care decreased mean per-patient diagnostic cost by 27% and increased mean per-patient revascularization costs by 67%.
Conclusions:
In 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.
More Related Videos
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
10:28Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
Related Concept Videos
01:13Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...
01:17Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System I:Echocardiography
Indications: Echocardiography is utilized to diagnose heart failure, valve disorders, and myocardial infarction. It also assesses cardiac structures' size, shape, and motion,...
01:26Exercise Stress Test
Exercise stress testing, commonly known as a treadmill test, is a noninvasive procedure used to evaluate cardiovascular function and diagnose heart conditions.
Definition
An exercise stress test measures the heart's response to exertion using a treadmill or stationary bicycle. Chest electrodes record the heart's electrical activity through an ECG, and blood pressure is monitored regularly.
Purposes