Effect of Body Mass Index on Effectiveness of CT versus Invasive Coronary Angiography in Stable Chest Pain: The DISCHARGE Trial

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230591

When patients suspected of having coronary artery disease were stratified by body mass index category, no difference in clinical outcomes was observed between those who underwent initial management with CT and those who underwent invasive coronary angiography.

Background

Recent trials support the role of cardiac CT in the evaluation of symptomatic patients suspected of having coronary artery disease (CAD); however, body mass index (BMI) has been reported to negatively impact CT image quality.

Purpose

To compare initial use of CT versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) on clinical outcomes in patients with stable chest pain stratified by BMI category.

Materials and Methods

This prospective study represents a prespecified BMI subgroup analysis of the multicenter Diagnostic Imaging Strategies for Patients with Stable Chest Pain and Intermediate Risk of Coronary Artery Disease (DISCHARGE) trial conducted between October 2015 and April 2019. Adult patients with stable chest pain and a CAD pretest probability of 10%–60% were randomly assigned to undergo initial CT or ICA. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary end point was an expanded MACE composite, including transient ischemic attack, and major procedure-related complications. Competing risk analyses were performed using the Fine and Gray subdistribution Cox proportional hazard model to assess the impact of the relationship between BMI and initial management with CT or ICA on the study outcomes, whereas noncardiovascular death and unknown causes of death were considered competing risk events.

Results

Among the 3457 participants included, 831 (24.0%), 1358 (39.3%), and 1268 (36.7%) had a BMI of less than 25, between 25 and 30, and greater than 30 kg/m2, respectively. No interaction was found between CT or ICA and BMI for MACE (P = .29), the expanded MACE composite (P = .38), or major procedure-related complications (P = .49). Across all BMI subgroups, expanded MACE composite events (CT, 10 of 409 [2.4%] to 23 of 697 [3.3%]; ICA, 26 of 661 [3.9%] to 21 of 422 [5.1%]) and major procedure-related complications during initial management (CT, one of 638 [0.2%] to five of 697 [0.7%]; ICA, nine of 630 [1.4%] to 12 of 422 [2.9%]) were less frequent in the CT versus ICA group. Participants with a BMI exceeding 30 kg/m² exhibited a higher nondiagnostic CT rate (7.1%, P = .044) compared to participants with lower BMI.

Conclusion

There was no evidence of a difference in outcomes between CT and ICA across the three BMI subgroups.

Clinical trial registration no. NCT02400229

© RSNA, 2024

Supplemental material is available for this article.

References

  • 1. Cortez RM, Okoshi MP, Okoshi K. A Review of the Roles and Limitations of Noninvasive Imaging Methods for Investigating Cardiovascular Disease in Individuals with Obesity. Med Sci Monit 2022;28:e937362. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Pollack LM, Wang M, Leung MYM, Colditz G, Herrick C, Chang SH. Obesity-related multimorbidity and risk of cardiovascular disease in the middle-aged population in the United States. Prev Med 2020;139:106225. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Bigvava T, Zamani SM, Pieske-Kraigher E, Gebker R, Pieske B, Kelle S. Prognostic value of non-invasive stress testing for coronary artery disease in obese patients. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2015;13(12):1325–1332. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Kim M, Kim MA, Kim HL, et al. Body mass index and the risk of low femoral artery puncture in coronary angiography under fluoroscopy guidance. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97(9):e0070. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Berry C, Kelly J, Cobbe SM, Eteiba H. Comparison of femoral bleeding complications after coronary angiography versus percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2004;94(3):361–363. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Cox N, Resnic FS, Popma JJ, Simon DI, Eisenhauer AC, Rogers C. Comparison of the risk of vascular complications associated with femoral and radial access coronary catheterization procedures in obese versus nonobese patients. Am J Cardiol 2004;94(9):1174–1177. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019;40(2):87–165. [Published correction appears in Eur Heart J 2019;40(37):3096.] Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. DISCHARGE Trial Group; Maurovich-Horvat P, Bosserdt M, et al. CT or Invasive Coronary Angiography in Stable Chest Pain. N Engl J Med 2022;386(17):1591–1602. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Dewey M, Vavere AL, Arbab-Zadeh A, et al. Patient characteristics as predictors of image quality and diagnostic accuracy of MDCT compared with conventional coronary angiography for detecting coronary artery stenoses: CORE-64 Multicenter International Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(1):93–102. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Napp AE, Haase R, Laule M, et al. Computed tomography versus invasive coronary angiography: design and methods of the pragmatic randomised multicentre DISCHARGE trial. Eur Radiol 2017;27(7):2957–2968. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Task Force Members; Montalescot G, Sechtem U, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34(38):2949–3003. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Authors/Task Force members; Windecker S, Kolh P, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 2014;35(37):2541–2619. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, et al. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Eur Heart J 2012;33(13):1635–1701. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Haase R, Schlattmann P, Gueret P, et al. Diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease using computed tomography angiography in patients with stable chest pain depending on clinical probability and in clinically important subgroups: meta-analysis of individual patient data. BMJ 2019;365:l1945. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33(6):1756–1824. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Leipsic J, Abbara S, Achenbach S, et al. SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2014;8(5):342–358. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004;141(10):781–788. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Dewey M, Rief M, Martus P, et al. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with atypical angina or chest pain clinically referred for invasive coronary angiography: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2016;355:i5441. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Bosserdt M, Feger S, Rief M, et al. Performing Computed Tomography Instead of Invasive Coronary Angiography: Sex Effects in Patients With Suspected CAD. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;13(3):888–889. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Schönenberger E, Martus P, Bosserdt M, et al. Kidney Injury after Intravenous versus Intra-arterial Contrast Agent in Patients Suspected of Having Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. Radiology 2019;292(3):664–672. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21. DISCHARGE Trial Group; Kofoed KF, Bosserdt M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of initial computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography in women and men with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease: multicentre randomised trial. BMJ 2022;379:e071133. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Gorenoi V, Schönermark MP, Hagen A. CT coronary angiography vs. invasive coronary angiography in CHD. GMS Health Technol Assess 2012;8:Doc02. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Andersen K, Bregendahl M, Kaestel H, Skriver M, Ravkilde J. Haematoma after coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via the femoral artery frequency and risk factors. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2005;4(2):123–127. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Hayıroğlu Mİ, Çınar T, Bıçakçı B, et al. Predictors of femoral hematoma in patients undergoing elective coronary procedure: a trigonometric evaluation. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;34(8):1177–1184. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Gruberg L, Weissman NJ, Waksman R, et al. The impact of obesity on the short-term and long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: the obesity paradox? J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39(4):578–584. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Hainer V, Aldhoon-Hainerová I. Obesity paradox does exist. Diabetes Care 2013;36 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S276–S281. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Litwin SE, Coles A, Hill CL, et al. Discordances between predicted and actual risk in obese patients with suspected cardiac ischaemia. Heart 2020;106(4):273–279. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Litwin SE, Coles A, Pagidipati N, et al. Effects of obesity on noninvasive test results in patients with suspected cardiac ischemia: Insights from the PROMISE trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2019;13(4):211–218. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Kammerlander AA, Mayrhofer T, Ferencik M, et al. Association of Metabolic Phenotypes With Coronary Artery Disease and Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Stable Chest Pain. Diabetes Care 2021;44(4):1038–1045. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Carter J, Heseltine TD, Meah MN, et al. Hepatosteatosis and Atherosclerotic Plaque at Coronary CT Angiography. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging 2022;4(2):e210260. LinkGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received: Mar 28 2023
Revision requested: May 5 2023
Revision received: Dec 12 2023
Accepted: Dec 19 2023
Published online: Feb 13 2024