The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Economic outcomes with precision diagnostic testing versus usual testing in stable chest pain: results from the PRECISE randomized trial

Economic outcomes with precision diagnostic testing versus usual testing in stable chest pain: results from the PRECISE randomized trial
Economic outcomes with precision diagnostic testing versus usual testing in stable chest pain: results from the PRECISE randomized trial
Background: the PRECISE (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization) demonstrated that a precision diagnostic strategy reduced the primary composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or catheterization without obstructive coronary artery disease by 65% in patients with nonacute chest pain compared with usual testing. Medical cost was a prespecified secondary end point.

Methods: PRECISE randomized 2103 patients between December 2018 and May 2021 to usual testing or a precision strategy that used deferred testing for the lowest risk patients (20%) and coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve for the remainder. Resource use consumption data were collected from all study participants and hospital cost data from US participants (n=1125) to estimate total medical costs. The primary and secondary economic outcomes were total costs at 12 months and at 45 days, respectively, from the US health care system perspective. The mean cost differences between the 2 strategies were reported by intention-to-treat.

Results: at 45 days, total costs were similar between the precision strategy and usual testing (mean difference, $182 [95% CI, −$555 to $661]). By 12 months, percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery had been performed in 7.2% and 2.0% of precision strategy patients and 3.5% and 1.7% of usual testing patients, respectively. At 1 year, precision strategy costs were $5299 versus $4821 for usual testing (mean difference, $478 [95% CI, −$889 to $1437]; P=0.43). Precision care decreased mean per-patient diagnostic cost by 27% and increased mean per-patient revascularization costs by 67%.

Conclusions: in the PRECISE trial, the precision strategy, a risk-based approach endorsed by current clinical practice guidelines, improved the clinical efficiency of testing and had similar costs to usual testing at 45 days and a nonsignificant $478 cost difference at 1 year.

Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03702244.
coronary artery disease, chest pain, prospective studies, precision medicine, electrocardiography
1941-7713
Chew, Derek S.
fa906ba4-8e27-4815-8cb0-2c29fa2cac0e
Mark, Daniel B.
d8bb7a83-f463-42ef-aa53-d19bbe1fa83f
Liu, Yanhong
7db5cacb-a9fd-4a02-8843-5009c319c000
Nanna, Michael G
f80c381e-ac1a-4cae-95ca-fe2bdad182c9
Kelsey, Michelle D.
7e43deac-536b-4d1b-a2f7-a1d82efbc8b5
Daniels, Melanie R.
49a7180f-5ce1-4d17-9ee6-db1dd9094c55
Davidson-Ray, Linda
a313b75f-19d0-4218-b1f4-6227dd263016
Baloch, Khaula N.
cd8b49e7-0ef0-4079-8c04-92fb8dbcc7f7
Rogers, Campbell
30ecce2e-9a3e-4e7f-9280-8511a5865eda
Patel, Manesh R.
d4bc16f4-6708-401e-8301-6ab5fe9bb8b7
Anstrom, Kevin J.
a0075b1b-d45a-41ed-9c9c-2f7fbdaeaed3
Curzen, Nick
70f3ea49-51b1-418f-8e56-8210aef1abf4
Vemulapalli, Sreekanth
95b833ca-a1cc-4c3b-ba64-91971f8935ec
Douglas, Pamela S.
b282b64d-d5f2-4cc3-b832-9b8d52009e0c
on behalf of the PRECISE Investigators
Chew, Derek S.
fa906ba4-8e27-4815-8cb0-2c29fa2cac0e
Mark, Daniel B.
d8bb7a83-f463-42ef-aa53-d19bbe1fa83f
Liu, Yanhong
7db5cacb-a9fd-4a02-8843-5009c319c000
Nanna, Michael G
f80c381e-ac1a-4cae-95ca-fe2bdad182c9
Kelsey, Michelle D.
7e43deac-536b-4d1b-a2f7-a1d82efbc8b5
Daniels, Melanie R.
49a7180f-5ce1-4d17-9ee6-db1dd9094c55
Davidson-Ray, Linda
a313b75f-19d0-4218-b1f4-6227dd263016
Baloch, Khaula N.
cd8b49e7-0ef0-4079-8c04-92fb8dbcc7f7
Rogers, Campbell
30ecce2e-9a3e-4e7f-9280-8511a5865eda
Patel, Manesh R.
d4bc16f4-6708-401e-8301-6ab5fe9bb8b7
Anstrom, Kevin J.
a0075b1b-d45a-41ed-9c9c-2f7fbdaeaed3
Curzen, Nick
70f3ea49-51b1-418f-8e56-8210aef1abf4
Vemulapalli, Sreekanth
95b833ca-a1cc-4c3b-ba64-91971f8935ec
Douglas, Pamela S.
b282b64d-d5f2-4cc3-b832-9b8d52009e0c

on behalf of the PRECISE Investigators (2025) Economic outcomes with precision diagnostic testing versus usual testing in stable chest pain: results from the PRECISE randomized trial. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 18 (2), [e011008]. (doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.123.011008).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: the PRECISE (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization) demonstrated that a precision diagnostic strategy reduced the primary composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or catheterization without obstructive coronary artery disease by 65% in patients with nonacute chest pain compared with usual testing. Medical cost was a prespecified secondary end point.

Methods: PRECISE randomized 2103 patients between December 2018 and May 2021 to usual testing or a precision strategy that used deferred testing for the lowest risk patients (20%) and coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve for the remainder. Resource use consumption data were collected from all study participants and hospital cost data from US participants (n=1125) to estimate total medical costs. The primary and secondary economic outcomes were total costs at 12 months and at 45 days, respectively, from the US health care system perspective. The mean cost differences between the 2 strategies were reported by intention-to-treat.

Results: at 45 days, total costs were similar between the precision strategy and usual testing (mean difference, $182 [95% CI, −$555 to $661]). By 12 months, percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery had been performed in 7.2% and 2.0% of precision strategy patients and 3.5% and 1.7% of usual testing patients, respectively. At 1 year, precision strategy costs were $5299 versus $4821 for usual testing (mean difference, $478 [95% CI, −$889 to $1437]; P=0.43). Precision care decreased mean per-patient diagnostic cost by 27% and increased mean per-patient revascularization costs by 67%.

Conclusions: in the PRECISE trial, the precision strategy, a risk-based approach endorsed by current clinical practice guidelines, improved the clinical efficiency of testing and had similar costs to usual testing at 45 days and a nonsignificant $478 cost difference at 1 year.

Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03702244.

Text
chew-et-al-2025-economic-outcomes-with-precision-diagnostic-testing-versus-usual-testing-in-stable-chest-pain-results - Version of Record
Download (943kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 30 August 2024
e-pub ahead of print date: 3 February 2025
Keywords: coronary artery disease, chest pain, prospective studies, precision medicine, electrocardiography

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 498331
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/498331
ISSN: 1941-7713
PURE UUID: 2d416cca-0cb1-437c-ad6f-16ce7f80d313
ORCID for Nick Curzen: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-9651-7829

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 14 Feb 2025 17:59
Last modified: 22 Aug 2025 01:54

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Derek S. Chew
Author: Daniel B. Mark
Author: Yanhong Liu
Author: Michael G Nanna
Author: Michelle D. Kelsey
Author: Melanie R. Daniels
Author: Linda Davidson-Ray
Author: Khaula N. Baloch
Author: Campbell Rogers
Author: Manesh R. Patel
Author: Kevin J. Anstrom
Author: Nick Curzen ORCID iD
Author: Sreekanth Vemulapalli
Author: Pamela S. Douglas
Corporate Author: on behalf of the PRECISE Investigators

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×