Cited by 1,390Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsAcute Myocardial Infarction Research

Coronary CT Angiography and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction

Open access
The SCOT-HEART Investigators·2018·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) improves diagnostic certainty in the assessment of patients with stable chest pain, its effect on 5-year clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: In an open-label, multicenter, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned 4146 patients with stable chest pain who had been referred to a cardiology clinic for evaluation to standard care plus CTA (2073 patients) or to standard care alone (2073 patients). Investigations, treatments, and clinical outcomes were assessed over 3 to 7 years of follow-up. The primary end point was death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 4.8 years, which yielded 20,254 patient-years of follow-up. The 5-year rate of the primary end point was lower in the CTA group than in the standard-care group (2.3% [48 patients] vs. 3.9% [81 patients]; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.84; P=0.004). Although the rates of invasive coronary angiography and coronary revascularization were higher in the CTA group than in the standard-care group in the first few months of follow-up, overall rates were similar at 5 years: invasive coronary angiography was performed in 491 patients in the CTA group and in 502 patients in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.13), and coronary revascularization was performed in 279 patients in the CTA group and in 267 in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.27). However, more preventive therapies were initiated in patients in the CTA group (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.65), as were more antianginal therapies (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.54). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of cardiovascular or noncardiovascular deaths or deaths from any cause. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, the use of CTA in addition to standard care in patients with stable chest pain resulted in a significantly lower rate of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years than standard care alone, without resulting in a significantly higher rate of coronary angiography or coronary revascularization. (Funded by the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office and others; SCOT-HEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01149590 .).

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/nejmoa1805971

Cites

32 of 32 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
The SCOT-HEART Investigators
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
The SCOT-HEART Investigators
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2018-09-06
Volume
379
Issue
10
Pages
924-933
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2892274298
Cited by
1,390
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 138 · 2025: 159 · 2024: 171 · 2023: 197 · 2022: 164 · 2021: 211 · 2020: 182 · 2019: 142 · 2018: 26
FWCI
96.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Chief Scientist Office (CZH/4/588)
  • British Heart Foundation (CH/09/002, RE/13/3/30183)
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 › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
Keywords
coronary CT angiography, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease mortality, stable chest pain, coronary revascularization, invasive coronary angiography, prophylaxis, antianginal therapy, coronary artery disease diagnosis, standard of care comparison, cardiovascular risk stratification
MeSH terms
Computed Tomography Angiography, Adult, Aged, Chest Pain, Coronary Disease, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Risk, Incidence, Coronary Angiography, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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