Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 903

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Coronary CT Angiography versus Standard Evaluation in Acute Chest Pain

Open access
Hoffmann, Udo, Truong, Quynh A., Schoenfeld, David A., Chou, Eric T., Woodard, Pamela K., Nagurney, John T., Pope, J. Hector, Hauser, Thomas H., White, Charles S., Weiner, Scott G., Kalanjian, Shant, Mullins, Michael E., Mikati, Issam, Peacock, W. Frank, Zakroysky, Pearl, Hayden, Douglas, Goehler, Alexander, Lee, Hang, Gazelle, G. Scott, Wiviott, Stephen D., Fleg, Jerome L., Udelson, James E.·2012·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether an evaluation incorporating coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is more effective than standard evaluation in the emergency department in patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients 40 to 74 years of age with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes but without ischemic electrocardiographic changes or an initial positive troponin test to early CCTA or to standard evaluation in the emergency department on weekdays during daylight hours between April 2010 and January 2012. The primary end point was length of stay in the hospital. Secondary end points included rates of discharge from the emergency department, major adverse cardiovascular events at 28 days, and cumulative costs. Safety end points were undetected acute coronary syndromes. RESULTS: The rate of acute coronary syndromes among 1000 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 54±8 years (47% women) was 8%. After early CCTA, as compared with standard evaluation, the mean length of stay in the hospital was reduced by 7.6 hours (P<0.001) and more patients were discharged directly from the emergency department (47% vs. 12%, P<0.001). There were no undetected acute coronary syndromes and no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events at 28 days. After CCTA, there was more downstream testing and higher radiation exposure. The cumulative mean cost of care was similar in the CCTA group and the standard-evaluation group ($4,289 and $4,060, respectively; P=0.65). CONCLUSIONS: In patients in the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes, incorporating CCTA into a triage strategy improved the efficiency of clinical decision making, as compared with a standard evaluation in the emergency department, but it resulted in an increase in downstream testing and radiation exposure with no decrease in the overall costs of care. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ROMICAT-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01084239.).

Overview

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1201161

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 903

Metadata

Authors
Hoffmann, U., Truong, Q. A., Schoenfeld, D. A., Chou, E. T., Woodard, P. K., Nagurney, J. T., Pope, J. H., Hauser, T. H., White, C. S., Weiner, S. G., Kalanjian, S., Mullins, M. E., Mikati, I., Peacock, W. F., Zakroysky, P., Hayden, D., Goehler, A., Lee, H., Gazelle, G. S., Wiviott, S. D., Fleg, J. L., & Udelson, J. E.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2012-07-26
Volume
367
Issue
4
Pages
299-308
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2108231461
Cited by
903
References
0
FWCI
64.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Coronary CT Angiography versus Standard Evaluation in Acute Chest Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1201161
The paper
Hoffmann, U., Truong, Q. A., Schoenfeld, D. A., Chou, E. T., Woodard, P. K., Nagurney, J. T., Pope, J. H., Hauser, T. H., White, C. S., Weiner, S. G., Kalanjian, S., Mullins, M. E., Mikati, I., Peacock, W. F., Zakroysky, P., Hayden, D., Goehler, A., Lee, H., Gazelle, G. S., . . . Udelson, J. E. (2012). Coronary CT Angiography versus Standard Evaluation in Acute Chest Pain. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1201161

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.