Cited by 72Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

Stress Testing Versus CT Angiography in Patients With Diabetes and Suspected Coronary Artery Disease

Open access
Sharma, Abhinav, Coles, Adrian, Sekaran, Nishant K., Pagidipati, Neha J., Lu, Michael T., Mark, Daniel B., Lee, Kerry L., Al-Khalidi, Hussein R. +2 more·2019·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Background The optimal noninvasive test (NIT) for patients with diabetes and stable symptoms of coronary artery disease (CAD) is unknown.Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess whether a diagnostic strategy based on coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) is superior to functional stress testing in reducing adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes (CV death or myocardial infarction [MI]) among symptomatic patients with diabetes.Methods PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) was a randomized trial evaluating an initial strategy of CTA versus functional testing in stable outpatients with symptoms suggestive of CAD. The study compared CV outcomes in patients with diabetes (n = 1,908 [21%]) and without diabetes (n = 7,058 [79%]) based on their randomization to CTA or functional testing.Results Patients with diabetes (vs. without) were similar in age (median 61 years vs. 60 years) and sex (female 54% vs. 52%) but had a greater burden of CV comorbidities. Patients with diabetes who underwent CTA had a lower risk of CV death/MI compared with functional stress testing (CTA: 1.1% [10 of 936] vs. stress testing: 2.6% [25 of 972]; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.38; 95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.79; p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in nondiabetic patients (CTA: 1.4% [50 of 3,564] vs. stress testing: 1.3% [45 of 3,494]; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 1.54; p = 0.887; interaction term for diabetes p value = 0.02).Conclusions In diabetic patients presenting with stable chest pain, a CTA strategy resulted in fewer adverse CV outcomes than a functional testing strategy. CTA may be considered as the initial diagnostic strategy in this subgroup. (PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain [PROMISE]; NCT01174550).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.056

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharma, A., Coles, A., Sekaran, N. K., Pagidipati, N. J., Lu, M. T., Mark, D. B., Lee, K. L., Al-Khalidi, H. R., Hoffmann, U., & Douglas, P. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Douglas, Pamela S.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
73
Issue
8
Pages
893-902
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2916872008
Cited by
72
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • Sanofi
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Alexion Pharmaceuticals
  • Nvidia
  • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
  • Canadian Cardiovascular Society
  • Kowa Company
  • Verily Life Sciences
  • Alberta Innovates
  • National Institutes of Health
  • St. Jude Medical
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL098237, R01HL098235, R01HL098305, R01HL98305, R01HL098236)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, coronary CT angiography, noninvasive cardiac testing, stable chest pain, cardiovascular outcomes, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, PROMISE trial
MeSH terms
Computed Tomography Angiography, Aged, Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Electrocardiography, Exercise Test, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Coronary Angiography, Multidetector Computed Tomography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review