Patient Preferences for Coronary CT Angiography with Stress Perfusion, SPECT, or Invasive Coronary Angiography

Abstract

Background: Patient preference is pivotal for widespread adoption of tests in clinical practice. Patient preferences for invasive versus other noninvasive tests for coronary artery disease are not known. Purpose: To compare patient acceptance and preferences for noninvasive and invasive cardiac imaging in North and South America, Asia, and Europe. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective 16-center trial in 381 study participants undergoing coronary CT angiography with stress perfusion, SPECT, and invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Patient preferences were collected by using a previously validated questionnaire translated into eight languages. Responses were converted to ordinal scales and were modeled with generalized linear mixed models. Results: In patients in whom at least one test was associated with pain, CT and SPECT showed reduced median pain levels, reported on 0-100 visual analog scales, from 20 for ICA (interquartile range [IQR], 4-50) to 6 for CT (IQR, 0-27.5) and 5 for SPECT (IQR, 0-25) (P < .001). Patients from Asia reported significantly more pain than patients from other continents for ICA (median, 25; IQR, 10-50; P = .01), CT (median, 10; IQR, 0-30; P = .02), and SPECT (median, 7; IQR, 0-28; P = .03). Satisfaction with preparation differed by continent and test (P = .01), with patients from Asia reporting generally lower ratings. Patients from North America had greater percentages of ""very high"" or ""high"" satisfaction than patients from other continents for ICA (96% vs 82%, respectively; P < .001) and SPECT (95% vs 79%, respectively; P = .04) but not for CT (89% vs 86%, respectively; P = .70). Among all patients, CT was preferred by 54% of patients, compared with 18% for SPECT and 28% for ICA (P < .001). Conclusion: For cardiac imaging, patients generally favored CT angiography with stress perfusion, while study participants from Asia generally reported lowest satisfaction. (c) RSNA, 2019