Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Randomised controlled trial
Clinical outcomes following coronary CT angiography are comparable to radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging for ethnically diverse intermediate risk acute chest pain inpatients
  1. Hampton Crimm1,
  2. Edward Hulten1,2
  1. 1Department of Medicine (Cardiology Service), Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA;
  2. 2Non-Invasive Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Departments of Medicine (Cardiovascular Division) and Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  1. Correspondence to : Dr Edward Hulten, Department of Medicine (Cardiology Service), Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA; ehulten{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Commentary on: OpenUrlCrossRef.


Since the evolution of 64-multidetector CT in the early 2000s, use of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) has experienced rapid expansion due to excellent sensitivity to exclude obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in low to intermediate risk chest pain patients.1 Prior studies of acute chest pain patients have demonstrated a diagnostic strategy using CCTA to have comparable safety to usual care evaluation, generally radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), with the potential for more rapid triage but an increased rate of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and revascularisation.2 Prior CCTA trials, like most cardiovascular studies, have enrolled predominantly Caucasian men.


At a …

View Full Text


  • Contributors EH and HC contributed to the conception or design of the work there was no the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data. Both authors drafted the work and revised it critically for important intellectual content. Both authors approve of the final version submitted. Both authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.