Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Active, Not Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT03976921

Impact of Stress CT Myocardial Perfusion on Downstream Resources and Prognosis

CT myocardial perfusion imaging (CTP) represents one of the newly developed CT-based techniques but its cost-effectiveness in the clinical pathway is undefined. The aim of the study is to evaluate the usefulness of combined evaluation of coronary anatomy and myocardial perfusion in intermediate to high-risk patients for suspected CAD or with known disease in terms of clinical decision-making, resource utilization and outcomes in a broad variety of geographic areas and patient subgroups.

Active, Not Recruiting

This study is active but is not currently recruiting participants.

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Centro Cardiologico Monzino IRCCS

Milan, MI, 20138, Italy

About this study

The use of cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is usually suggested in low to intermediate risk for its diagnostic and prognostic role to rule out CAD with low radiation exposure. In the setting of intermediate to high risk patients, the addition of functional information is prognostically useful and, in patients with previous history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), functional strategy has been shown to be more cost-effective as compared to anatomical assessment CT myocardial perfusion imaging (CTP) represents one of the newly developed CT-based techniques, combining both anatomical and functional evaluation of CAD in a single imaging modality. More recently, stress CTP was shown to provide additional diagnostic value as compared to CCTA alone in intermediate to high risk patients. The purpose of this study will be to evaluate the usefulness and impact of combined evaluation of coronary artery anatomy and myocardial perfusion with CCTA+CTP in intermediate to high risk patients for suspected CAD or with known disease in terms of clinical decision-making, resource utilization, and outcomes in a broad variety of geographic areas and patient subgroups.

CTP-PRO study is a cooperative, international, multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled study evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a CCTA+CTP strategy versus usual care in intermediate to high risk patients with suspected or known CAD who undergo clinically indicated diagnostic evaluation.

Patients will be screened for study eligibility. Patients meeting all selection criteria will be asked to sign an informed consent document prior to undergoing any study-specific evaluation; then a structured interview will be performed and a clinical history obtained, assessing the presence of common cardiac risk factors, drug therapy (focus on statin, aspirin and/or antiplatelet agent use) and symptoms (typical or atypical angina, to estimate the pre-test likelihood of CAD).

Upon completion of the screening procedure and enrollment, the patients will be randomized 1:1 to the CT-based strategy (Group A) or usual care (Group B). Patient follow-up will be performed at 1 year (± 1 month) and 2 years (± 1 month) by trained interviewers who check medical records or by phone interview collecting the following information: downstream testing; overall radiation exposure; outcomes; cost-effectiveness estimation.

The primary endpoint of the study is the reclassification rate of CCTA in group B due to the addition of CTP. The secondary endpoint will be the comparison between group A and group B in terms of non-invasive and invasive downstream testing, prevalence of obstructive CAD at ICA, revascularization, cumulative ED and overall cost during the follow-up at 1- and 2-years. The tertiary endpoint will be the comparison between each group in terms of MACE and cost-effectiveness at 1- and 2-years.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Consecutive patients (age ≥ 18 years) with known or suspected CAD referred for clinically indicated diagnostic evaluation.
  • CCTA has to be performed with the state of art in terms of scanner technology as follow: Revolution CT (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI), CardioGraphe (Arineta, Caesarea, Israel), SOMATOM Force (Siemens, Forchheim, Germany), Brilliance iCT and IQon CT (Philips, Best, Netherlands), Aquilion One Vision (Toshiba Medical Systems Corp., Otawara, Japan).

Exclusion criteria

  • Performance of any non-invasive diagnostic testing within 90 days before enrollment
  • Low to intermediate pre-test likelihood of CAD according to the updated Diamond-Forrester risk model score
  • Acute coronary syndrome
  • Need for an emergent procedure
  • Evidence of clinical instability
  • Contra-indication to contrast agent administration and/or impaired renal function
  • Inability to sustain a breath hold
  • Pregnancy
  • Cardiac arrhythmias
  • Presence of pace maker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • Contra-indications to the administration of sub-lingual nitrates, beta-blockade and adenosine
  • Structural cardiomyopathy outside of suspected or know ischemic heart disease

Treatment and study plan

Integration of CCTA with stress CTP when indicated

Diagnostic Test

When judged indicated, functional assessment with stress CTP perfusion will be performed on top of CCTA.

Standard of care approach

Diagnostic Test

(a) functional non-invasive tests (stress ECG, or imaging-based tests such as Stress Echo, Stress CMR, SPECT or PET) as a gatekeeper for ICA; (b) direct referral to ICA.

Primary outcomes

  1. Reclassification rate of CCTA in group B due to the addition of CTP

    Time frame: 30 days.

    For each enrolled patient in whom both CCTA and stress CTP will be performed, the endpoint review committee will use data from coronary CTA and CTP, along with the clinical data to determine the management plan using the following criteria: (a) optimal medical therapy, (b) more non-invasive information required, (c) invasive evaluation required, (d) revascularization treatment (PCI or CABG or hybrid treatment).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Downstream non-invasive testing

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B in terms of number of non-invasive downstream testing (Exercise EKG, Stress-Echo, SPECT, Stress CMR, PET) or invasive testing (invasive coronary angiography) performed after the randomization.

  2. Downstream invasive testing

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B in terms of number of downstream invasive testing (invasive coronary angiography) performed after the randomization.

  3. Prevalence of obstructive CAD at ICA

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B in terms of number of patients with obstructive CAD at ICA.

  4. Revascularization

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B in terms of number of patients treated with revascularization (PCI or CABG or hybrid treatment).

  5. Effective Dose

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B in terms of cumulative Effective Dose (ED), measured in mSv, due to non-invasive or invasive testing performed after randomization.

  6. Overall costs related to downstream diagnostic tests.

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B in terms of overall costs of downstream diagnostic tests (sum of costs of all diagnostic tests performed after randomization), expressed in Dollars, according to local reimbursement.

Other outcomes

  1. Hospitalization for cardiac reason

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B group in terms of number of patients that needed hospitalization for cardiac reason.

  2. Unstable angina

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B group in terms of number of patients that needed hospitalization for unstable angina (defined according to 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2016:37,267-315).

  3. Non-fatal myocardial infarction

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B group in terms of number of patients that experienced non-fatal myocardial infarction (defined according to Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction, 2018. Eur Heart J 2019:40,237-269).

  4. Cardiac death

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Comparison between group A and group B group in terms of number of patients that experienced death because of immediate cardiac cause (e.g., MI, low-output failure, fatal arrhythmia) or vascular cause (e.g., cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary embolism, ruptured aortic aneurysm, dissecting aneurysm, or other vascular cause). Unwitnessed death and death of unknown cause will be classified as cardiovascular death.

  5. MACE (Major adverse cardiovascular events)

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    MACE will be defined as a combined endpoint of unstable angina, nonfatal MI, and cardiac death.

  6. Cost-effectiveness ratio

    Time frame: 1- and 2-years.

    Cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated according to the following equation: (Index test cost + downstream diagnostic tests cost) / projected remaining life expectancy.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Centro Cardiologico Monzino

Other

Collaborators

  • A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital
  • Emory University
  • Fundació Institut de Recerca de l'Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau
  • Humanitas Research Hospital IRCCS, Rozzano-Milan
  • IRCCS San Raffaele
  • Istituto Auxologico Italiano - IRCCS - Ospedale San Luca - Milano
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Mayo Clinic
  • Ospedale Polispecialistico Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo
  • Semmelweis University Heart and Vascular Center
  • Vall d'Hebron Institute Research

Registry information

Official study title

Impact of Stress Cardiac Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion on Downstream Resources and PROgnosis in Patients With Suspected or Known Coronary Artery Disease: a Multicenter International Study

Acronym: CTP-PRO

Important dates

Study start
2019
Primary completion
2026
Study completion
2027
First posted
Jun 6, 2019
Registry last updated
Jun 3, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.