. 2016 Feb 2;37(30):2397–2405. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw005

Table 2.

Summary of randomized, controlled, and multicentre trials comparing coronary computed tomography angiography with standard of care in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department

Study	CT-STAT⁴⁰		ACRIN⁴⁶		ROMICAT II⁵¹
Population (n)	699		1370		1000
Mean age (years)	50		49		54
Women (%)	54		53		47
TIMI risk score	0–4		0–2		N/A
MI during index hospitalization (%)	0.9		0.9		2.3
Control group	Stress myocardial perfusion imaging		Standard of care		Standard of care
Randomization	1:1		2:1		1:1
Number of centres	16		5		9
Conventional Tn assays and thresholds used in the study	Tn I, Bayer, thresholds not reported		Not reported		Tn T, Roche: 0.03 ng/mL Tn I, Alere: 0.40 ng/mL Tn I, Beckman: 0.07/0.04 ng/mL
	Coronary CTA	Controls	Coronary CTA	Controls	Coronary CTA	Controls
ACS during index hospitalization (%)	1.2	2.7	4	2	9	6
MACE during follow-up (%)	0.8	0.4	3	1	0.4	1.2
Time to diagnosis (h)	2.9^a	6.2^a	–	–	–	–
Length of stay (h)	–	–	18.0^a	24.8^a	23.2^a	30.8^a
Direct ED discharges (%)	–	–	50^a	23^a	47^a	12^a
Invasive coronary angiography (%)	7	6	5	4	11	7
Coronary revascularization (%)	4	2	3	1	7	4
ED cost ($)	2137	3458	–	–	2101	2566
Radiation dose (mSv)	12	13	–	–	14^a	5^a

^aSignificant difference between coronary CTA and control groups (P < 0.05).