Sculpher, Mark

Aims Guidelines for suspected cardiac chest pain have used historical risk stratification tools, advocating invasive coronary angiography (ICA) first-line in those at highest risk. We aimed to determine whether different strategies to manage suspected stable angina affected medium-term cardiovascular event rates and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) measures. Methods CE-MARC 2, a three-arm parallel group trial, randomised patients with suspected stable cardiac chest pain and a Duke Clinical pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease between 10% and 90%. Patients were randomised to either first-line cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) or the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG95 (2010) guidelines-directed care. For the three arms, 1-year and 3-year first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rates and QoL assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Short Form 12 (V.12) Questionnaire and EuroQol-5 Dimension Questionnaire were recorded. Results 1202 patients were randomised to CMR (n=481), SPECT (n=481) and NICE (n=240). Forty-two patients (18 CMR, 18 SPECT, 6 NICE) experienced one or more MACEs. The percentage rates (95% CIs) of MACE in the CMR, SPECT and NICE groups at 3 years were 3.7% (2.4%, 5.8%), 3.7% (2.4%, 5.8%) and 2.1% (0.9%, 4.8%), respectively. QoL scores did not significantly differ across domains. Conclusion Despite a fourfold increase in referrals for ICA, the NICE CG95 (2010) guidelines risk-stratified care strategy did not significantly reduce 3-year MACE or improve QoL, as compared with functional imaging with CMR or SPECT. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT01664858).

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of management strategies for patients presenting with chest pain and suspected coronary heart disease (CHD): (1) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR); (2) myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS); and (3) UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline-guided care. Methods Using UK data for 1202 patients from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease 2 trial, we conducted an economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of CMR, MPS and NICE guidelines. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs reflected UK pound sterling in 2016–2017. Cost-effectiveness results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net health benefits overall and for low, medium and high pretest likelihood of CHD subgroups. Results CMR had the highest estimated QALY gain overall (2.21 (95% credible interval 2.15, 2.26) compared with 2.07 (1.92, 2.20) for NICE and 2.11 (2.01, 2.22) for MPS) and incurred comparable costs (overall £1625 (£1431, £1824) compared with £1753 (£1473, £2032) for NICE and £1768 (£1572, £1989) for MPS). Overall, CMR was the cost-effective strategy, being the dominant strategy (more effective, less costly) with incremental net health benefits per patient of 0.146 QALYs (−0.18, 0.406) compared with NICE guidelines at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15 000 per QALY (93% probability of cost-effectiveness). Results were similar in the pretest likelihood subgroups. Conclusions CMR-guided care is cost-effective overall and across all pretest likelihood subgroups, compared with MPS and NICE guidelines.

Objective Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), cardiac resynchronisation therapy pacemakers (CRT-P) and the combination therapy (CRT-D) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy alone in patients with heart failure and reduced EF. Our aim was to synthesise data from major randomised controlled trials to estimate the comparative mortality effects of these devices and how these vary according to patients’ characteristics. Methods Data from 13 randomised trials (12 638 patients) were provided by medical technology companies. Individual patient data were synthesised using network meta-analysis. Results Unadjusted analyses found CRT-D to be the most effective treatment (reduction in rate of death vs medical therapy: 42% (95% credible interval: 32–50%), followed by ICD (29% (20–37%)) and CRT-P (28% (15–40%)). CRT-D reduced mortality compared with CRT-P (19% (1–33%)) and ICD (18% (7–28%)). QRS duration, left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology, age and gender were included as predictors of benefit in the final adjusted model. In this model, CRT-D reduced mortality in all subgroups (range: 53% (34–66%) to 28% (−1% to 49%)). Patients with QRS duration ≥150 ms, LBBB morphology and female gender benefited more from CRT-P and CRT-D. Men and those <60 years benefited more from ICD. Conclusions These data provide estimates for the mortality benefits of device therapy conditional upon multiple patient characteristics. They can be used to estimate an individual patient's expected relative benefit and thus inform shared decision making. Clinical guidelines should discuss age and gender as predictors of device benefits.