Acute Coronary SyndromeNCT00869245
Efficacy Evaluation of Observation Unit Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Patients With Intermediate Risk Acute Chest Pain
A study testing OU - Cardiac MRI and OU - Conventional Care Testing in people with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Chest Pain, run by Wake Forest University Health Sciences at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to investigate the best way to evaluate patients with chest pain in the emergency department. It compares types of cardiac tests performed while receiving treatment in an observation unit. Patients will either undergo cardiac MRI testing or conventional care testing. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Acute Coronary Syndrome, Chest Pain
- What is being tested?
- OU - Cardiac MRI and OU - Conventional Care Testing
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 124 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Mar 2009to Oct 2011
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age greater than or equal to 18 years
- Chest discomfort or other symptoms consistent with possible ACS
- TIMI risk score ≥ 1 or physician impression* of intermediate or high likelihood symptoms represent ACS
- Patient requires an inpatient or observation unit evaluation for their chest pain
- The treating physician feels the patient could be discharged home if cardiac disease was excluded
- ED attending feels patient is safe for observation unit care**
Who cannot join
- Initial troponin I > 1.0 ng/ml
- New ST-segment elevation (≥1mV) or depression (≥2 mV)
- Contra-indications to MRI (listed below)
- Unable to lie flat
- Hypotension (systolic < 90 mm Hg)
- Renal insufficiency (estimated GFR < 45 cc/min) or end stage renal disease
Show all 17Show fewer
- Life expectancy less than 3 months
- Patient refusal of medical record review and follow-up at 30 days
- Pregnancy
- Liver, heart, or kidney transplant
- Chronic liver disease
- Unable to speak English or Spanish
- The ED attending feels that cardiac catheterization is indicated
- The ED care provider intends to order a CT coronary angiogram
- ()Physicians are encouraged to use the 2007 ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with NSTE ACS as a framework for this assessment.(1)
- ()These patients should generally not be considered for observation unit care: PCI / CAGB in past 6 months, multiple stents, multiple prior MIs
- Contraindications to MRI: (Pacemaker, defibrillator, cerebral aneurysm clips, metallic ocular foreign body, implanted devices, claustrophobia)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center - Emergency Department
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157
About this study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the best way to evaluate patients with chest pain in the emergency department. It compares types of cardiac tests performed while receiving treatment in an observation unit. Patients will either undergo cardiac MRI testing or conventional care testing. Patients treated in the conventional care testing group will undergo the testing their doctor determines is best for them. All patients will undergo follow up to find out if they have had any heart related events.
Read the detailed description
Despite spending $12 billion annually on the emergency evaluation of chest pain in the US, only 15% of admitted patients have a cardiac cause of their presenting symptoms. Observation units (OU) improve resource utilization, are endorsed by the ACC/AHA guidelines, but have seen limited implementation in non-low risk chest pain patients due to limitations of traditional cardiac testing. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is sensitive and specific for ischemia, can simultaneously assess cardiac function and myocardial perfusion, and could revolutionize the diagnostic process for intermediate risk patients with chest pain. The superior accuracy of CMR could decrease testing resulting from false positive results. The high sensitivity for ongoing ischemia could allow imaging in parallel with cardiac markers.
Research hypotheses:
OU-CMR will have superior therapeutic efficacy to OU-conventional testing.
An OU-CMR strategy will have higher diagnostic thinking efficacy than OU-conventional testing.
Methods summary:
To address the question of feasibility of a CMR approach to managing patients at intermediate risk for ACS, we propose a randomized clinical trial of 120 patients at intermediate risk of ACS that present to the ED of Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (WFUBMC) for evaluation of chest pain. All patients will receive care in an OU, and will be randomized to CMR, or conventional testing. CMR participants will undergo cardiac markers and CMR testing; conventional testing participants will undergo serial cardiac markers followed by conventional cardiac testing. ACS (infarction, death, coronary revascularization, unstable angina) will be assessed by evaluation of hospital course and phone follow-up at 30 days. Cost of hospital care will be compared among groups.
- Conditions
- Acute Coronary Syndrome, Chest Pain
- Being tested
- OU - Cardiac MRI, OU - Conventional Care Testing
- Keywords
- ACS, Acute Coronary Syndrome, Chest pain, Cardiac MRI, CMR, Risk Stratification, Emergency Department
- Medical subject headings
- Acute Coronary Syndrome, Chest Pain, Emergencies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
OU - Cardiac MRIOther
During ED evaluation, patients are randomized to cardiac MRI or conventional care testing.
OU - Conventional Care TestingOther
Patients in the conventional testing arm will undergo testing as determined by their treating physician.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Cardiac MRI Protocol. Patients will be transferred to the observation unit and undergo a stress cardiac MRI evaluation. Receives: Other: OU - Cardiac MRI |
| 2 | Experimental | Conventional care cardiac testing. Patients will be transferred to the observation unit and undergo cardiac testing as determined by their treating physician. Receives: Other: OU - Conventional Care Testing |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Therapeutic efficacy: Length of stay
Measured: Duration of Initial Hospitalization
Secondary outcomes (4)
Therapeutic efficacy: Correct cardiovascular admission decision
Measured: Duration of Initial Hospitalization
Therapeutic efficacy: Non-therapeutic cardiac catheterizations
Measured: 30 days
Diagnostic thinking efficacy: change in diagnostic certainty
Measured: 30 days
Cost of index hospitalization
Measured: Duration of Initial Hospitalization
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Mar 2009 (estimated)
- Study startMar 2009
- Primary completionSep 2010
- Study completionOct 2011
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (40)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Acute Coronary SyndromeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Wake Forest University Health SciencesThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 124 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- American Heart Association
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Chadwick Miller, M.D., Principal investigator, WFUBMC
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00869245
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB00008247
- Other IDs
- AHA Identification # 0980008N
- Status last verified
- Apr 2017
- First submitted
- 24 Mar 2009
- Last updated
- 8 Nov 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, Bridges CR, Califf RM, Casey DE Jr, Chavey WE 2nd, Fesmire FM, Hochman JS, Levin TN, Lincoff AM, Peterson ED, Theroux P, Wenger NK, Wright RS, Smith SC Jr, Jacobs AK, Halperin JL, Hunt SA, Krumholz HM, Kushner FG, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Ornato JP, Page RL, Riegel B; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction); American College of Emergency Physicians; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction): developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons: endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Circulation. 2007 Aug 14;116(7):e148-304. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.181940. Epub 2007 Aug 6. No abstract available.
PubMed 17679616Rosamond W, Flegal K, Friday G, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N, Ho M, Howard V, Kissela B, Kittner S, Lloyd-Jones D, McDermott M, Meigs J, Moy C, Nichol G, O'Donnell CJ, Roger V, Rumsfeld J, Sorlie P, Steinberger J, Thom T, Wasserthiel-Smoller S, Hong Y; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2007 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2007 Feb 6;115(5):e69-171. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.179918. Epub 2006 Dec 28. No abstract available.
PubMed 17194875McCaig LF, Nawar EW. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2004 emergency department summary. Adv Data. 2006 Jun 23;(372):1-29.
PubMed 16841785Christenson J, Innes G, McKnight D, Thompson CR, Wong H, Yu E, Boychuk B, Grafstein E, Rosenberg F, Gin K, Anis A, Singer J. A clinical prediction rule for early discharge of patients with chest pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2006 Jan;47(1):1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.08.007. Epub 2005 Oct 19.
PubMed 16387209Goldstein JA, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, Ross MA, O'Neil BJ, Raff GL. A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Feb 27;49(8):863-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.08.064. Epub 2007 Feb 12.
PubMed 17320744Farkouh ME, Smars PA, Reeder GS, Zinsmeister AR, Evans RW, Meloy TD, Kopecky SL, Allen M, Allison TG, Gibbons RJ, Gabriel SE. A clinical trial of a chest-pain observation unit for patients with unstable angina. Chest Pain Evaluation in the Emergency Room (CHEER) Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1998 Dec 24;339(26):1882-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199812243392603.
PubMed 9862943Heller GV, Stowers SA, Hendel RC, Herman SD, Daher E, Ahlberg AW, Baron JM, Mendes de Leon CF, Rizzo JA, Wackers FJ. Clinical value of acute rest technetium-99m tetrofosmin tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with acute chest pain and nondiagnostic electrocardiograms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Apr;31(5):1011-7. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00057-6.
PubMed 9562001Sprivulis PC, Da Silva JA, Jacobs IG, Frazer AR, Jelinek GA. The association between hospital overcrowding and mortality among patients admitted via Western Australian emergency departments. Med J Aust. 2006 Mar 6;184(5):208-12. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00416.x.
PubMed 16515429Miro O, Antonio MT, Jimenez S, De Dios A, Sanchez M, Borras A, Milla J. Decreased health care quality associated with emergency department overcrowding. Eur J Emerg Med. 1999 Jun;6(2):105-7. doi: 10.1097/00063110-199906000-00003.
PubMed 10461551Pope JH, Aufderheide TP, Ruthazer R, Woolard RH, Feldman JA, Beshansky JR, Griffith JL, Selker HP. Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2000 Apr 20;342(16):1163-70. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200004203421603.
PubMed 10770981Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, Califf RM, Cheitlin MD, Hochman JS, Jones RH, Kereiakes D, Kupersmith J, Levin TN, Pepine CJ, Schaeffer JW, Smith EE 3rd, Steward DE, Theroux P, Gibbons RJ, Alpert JS, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Gregoratos G, Hiratzka LF, Jacobs AK, Smith SC Jr; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association. Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction--summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Oct 2;40(7):1366-74. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)02336-7. No abstract available.
PubMed 12383588Hoffmann U, Nagurney JT, Moselewski F, Pena A, Ferencik M, Chae CU, Cury RC, Butler J, Abbara S, Brown DF, Manini A, Nichols JH, Achenbach S, Brady TJ. Coronary multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of patients with acute chest pain. Circulation. 2006 Nov 21;114(21):2251-60. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.634808. Epub 2006 Oct 30.
PubMed 17075011Hollander JE, Litt HI, Chase M, Brown AM, Kim W, Baxt WG. Computed tomography coronary angiography for rapid disposition of low-risk emergency department patients with chest pain syndromes. Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Feb;14(2):112-6. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2006.09.051.
PubMed 17267528Katz DA, Griffith JL, Beshansky JR, Selker HP. The use of empiric clinical data in the evaluation of practice guidelines for unstable angina. JAMA. 1996 Nov 20;276(19):1568-74.
PubMed 8918854Gomberg-Maitland M, Murphy SA, Moliterno DJ, Cannon CP. Are we appropriately triaging patients with unstable angina? Am Heart J. 2005 Apr;149(4):613-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.09.035.
PubMed 15990742
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Nov 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Efficacy Evaluation of Observation Unit Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Patients With Intermediate Risk Acute Chest Pain
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00869245
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB00008247
- Conditions
- Acute Coronary Syndrome, Chest Pain
- Keywords
- ACS, Acute Coronary Syndrome, Chest pain, Cardiac MRI, CMR, Risk Stratification, Emergency Department
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 124 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Wake Forest University Health SciencesUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- American Heart Association
- Study start
- Mar 2009
- Primary completion
- Sep 2010 (actual)
- Study completion
- Oct 2011 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Mar 2009 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the best way to evaluate patients with chest pain in the emergency department. It compares types of cardiac tests performed while receiving treatment in an observation unit. Patients will either undergo cardiac MRI testing or conventional care testing. Patients treated in the conventional care testing group will undergo the testing their doctor determines is best for them. All patients will undergo follow up to find out if they have had any heart related events.
Detailed description
Despite spending $12 billion annually on the emergency evaluation of chest pain in the US, only 15% of admitted patients have a cardiac cause of their presenting symptoms. Observation units (OU) improve resource utilization, are endorsed by the ACC/AHA guidelines, but have seen limited implementation in non-low risk chest pain patients due to limitations of traditional cardiac testing. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is sensitive and specific for ischemia, can simultaneously assess cardiac function and myocardial perfusion, and could revolutionize the diagnostic process for intermediate risk patients with chest pain. The superior accuracy of CMR could decrease testing resulting from false positive results. The high sensitivity for ongoing ischemia could allow imaging in parallel with cardiac markers.
Research hypotheses:
OU-CMR will have superior therapeutic efficacy to OU-conventional testing.
An OU-CMR strategy will have higher diagnostic thinking efficacy than OU-conventional testing.
Methods summary:
To address the question of feasibility of a CMR approach to managing patients at intermediate risk for ACS, we propose a randomized clinical trial of 120 patients at intermediate risk of ACS that present to the ED of Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (WFUBMC) for evaluation of chest pain. All patients will receive care in an OU, and will be randomized to CMR, or conventional testing. CMR participants will undergo cardiac markers and CMR testing; conventional testing participants will undergo serial cardiac markers followed by conventional cardiac testing. ACS (infarction, death, coronary revascularization, unstable angina) will be assessed by evaluation of hospital course and phone follow-up at 30 days. Cost of hospital care will be compared among groups.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Other: OU - Cardiac MRICardiac MRI Protocol. Patients will be transferred to the observation unit and undergo a stress cardiac MRI evaluation. |
| 2 | Experimental | Other: OU - Conventional Care TestingConventional care cardiac testing. Patients will be transferred to the observation unit and undergo cardiac testing as determined by their treating physician. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Age greater than or equal to 18 years
- Chest discomfort or other symptoms consistent with possible ACS
- TIMI risk score ≥ 1 or physician impression* of intermediate or high likelihood symptoms represent ACS
- Patient requires an inpatient or observation unit evaluation for their chest pain
- The treating physician feels the patient could be discharged home if cardiac disease was excluded
Key exclusion criteria (17 listed)
- Initial troponin I > 1.0 ng/ml
- New ST-segment elevation (≥1mV) or depression (≥2 mV)
- Contra-indications to MRI (listed below)
- Unable to lie flat
- Hypotension (systolic < 90 mm Hg)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| OU - Cardiac MRIDuring ED evaluation, patients are randomized to cardiac MRI or conventional care testing. | Other | 1 |
| OU - Conventional Care TestingPatients in the conventional testing arm will undergo testing as determined by their treating physician. | Other | 2 |
Primary outcome
Therapeutic efficacy: Length of stay
Time frame: Duration of Initial Hospitalization
4 secondary outcomes
Therapeutic efficacy: Correct cardiovascular admission decision
Time frame: Duration of Initial Hospitalization
Therapeutic efficacy: Non-therapeutic cardiac catheterizations
Time frame: 30 days
Diagnostic thinking efficacy: change in diagnostic certainty
Time frame: 30 days
Cost of index hospitalization
Time frame: Duration of Initial Hospitalization
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Nov 2017.
- Background: PubMed 17679616Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, Bridges CR, Califf RM, Casey DE Jr, Chavey WE 2nd, Fesmire FM, Hochman JS, Levin TN, Lincoff AM, Peterson ED, Theroux P, Wenger NK, Wright RS, Smith SC Jr, Jacobs AK, Halperin JL, Hunt SA, Krumholz HM, Kushner FG, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Ornato JP, Page RL, Riegel B; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction); American College of Emergency Physicians; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction): developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons: endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Circulation. 2007 Aug 14;116(7):e148-304. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.181940. Epub 2007 Aug 6. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 17194875Rosamond W, Flegal K, Friday G, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N, Ho M, Howard V, Kissela B, Kittner S, Lloyd-Jones D, McDermott M, Meigs J, Moy C, Nichol G, O'Donnell CJ, Roger V, Rumsfeld J, Sorlie P, Steinberger J, Thom T, Wasserthiel-Smoller S, Hong Y; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2007 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2007 Feb 6;115(5):e69-171. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.179918. Epub 2006 Dec 28. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 16841785McCaig LF, Nawar EW. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2004 emergency department summary. Adv Data. 2006 Jun 23;(372):1-29.
- Background: PubMed 16387209Christenson J, Innes G, McKnight D, Thompson CR, Wong H, Yu E, Boychuk B, Grafstein E, Rosenberg F, Gin K, Anis A, Singer J. A clinical prediction rule for early discharge of patients with chest pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2006 Jan;47(1):1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.08.007. Epub 2005 Oct 19.
- Background: PubMed 17320744Goldstein JA, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, Ross MA, O'Neil BJ, Raff GL. A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Feb 27;49(8):863-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.08.064. Epub 2007 Feb 12.
- Background: PubMed 9862943Farkouh ME, Smars PA, Reeder GS, Zinsmeister AR, Evans RW, Meloy TD, Kopecky SL, Allen M, Allison TG, Gibbons RJ, Gabriel SE. A clinical trial of a chest-pain observation unit for patients with unstable angina. Chest Pain Evaluation in the Emergency Room (CHEER) Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1998 Dec 24;339(26):1882-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199812243392603.
- Background: PubMed 9562001Heller GV, Stowers SA, Hendel RC, Herman SD, Daher E, Ahlberg AW, Baron JM, Mendes de Leon CF, Rizzo JA, Wackers FJ. Clinical value of acute rest technetium-99m tetrofosmin tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with acute chest pain and nondiagnostic electrocardiograms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Apr;31(5):1011-7. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00057-6.
- Background: PubMed 16515429Sprivulis PC, Da Silva JA, Jacobs IG, Frazer AR, Jelinek GA. The association between hospital overcrowding and mortality among patients admitted via Western Australian emergency departments. Med J Aust. 2006 Mar 6;184(5):208-12. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00416.x.
- Background: PubMed 10461551Miro O, Antonio MT, Jimenez S, De Dios A, Sanchez M, Borras A, Milla J. Decreased health care quality associated with emergency department overcrowding. Eur J Emerg Med. 1999 Jun;6(2):105-7. doi: 10.1097/00063110-199906000-00003.
- Background: PubMed 10770981Pope JH, Aufderheide TP, Ruthazer R, Woolard RH, Feldman JA, Beshansky JR, Griffith JL, Selker HP. Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2000 Apr 20;342(16):1163-70. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200004203421603.
- Background: PubMed 12383588Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, Califf RM, Cheitlin MD, Hochman JS, Jones RH, Kereiakes D, Kupersmith J, Levin TN, Pepine CJ, Schaeffer JW, Smith EE 3rd, Steward DE, Theroux P, Gibbons RJ, Alpert JS, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Gregoratos G, Hiratzka LF, Jacobs AK, Smith SC Jr; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association. Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction--summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Oct 2;40(7):1366-74. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)02336-7. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 17075011Hoffmann U, Nagurney JT, Moselewski F, Pena A, Ferencik M, Chae CU, Cury RC, Butler J, Abbara S, Brown DF, Manini A, Nichols JH, Achenbach S, Brady TJ. Coronary multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of patients with acute chest pain. Circulation. 2006 Nov 21;114(21):2251-60. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.634808. Epub 2006 Oct 30.
Related trials for Acute Coronary Syndrome
Recruiting
CT Stress Myocardial Perfusion, Fractional Flow Reserve and Angiography in Patients With Stable Chest Pain Syndromes
Coronary Artery Disease, Chest Syndrome
Recruiting
WIN Ratio Analysis to Determine a Strategy of Non- Invasive SUpport for Respiratory Failure in the EmeRgency Department
Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
RecruitingPhase 4
Early Single Antiplatelet Therapy After IVUS-Guided PCI in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Acute Coronary Syndromes, STEMI
Recruiting
AI-Assisted Interpretation of Cardiac CT in the Emergency Department
Chest Pain, Acute Coronary Syndrome
Enrolling by invitation
Optical Coherence Tomography in Acute Vessel Evaluation
Ischemic Heart Disease, Ischemic Coronary Artery Disease
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Chadwick Miller, M.D. principal investigator
WFUBMC
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing OU - Cardiac MRI and OU - Conventional Care Testing in people with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Chest Pain, run by Wake Forest University Health Sciences at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 17 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Nov 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Therapeutic efficacy: Length of stay (time frame: Duration of Initial Hospitalization). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00869245, which also lists 40 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Nov 2017.