AzTrials
AzTrials

Chronic Coronary SyndromePhase 3PERMINCT06708000

Personalized Evaluation of Susptected Myocardial Ischemia

A Phase 3 study testing Clinical Likelihood (CL) Model-Based Diagnostic Strategy in people with Chronic Coronary Syndrome and Angina Pectoris, run by Gødstrup Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.

Enrolling by invitation

Enrolling by invitation. The study team selects and invites participants, usually from an existing group of patients.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study aims to assess whether the use of clinical risk models, known as Clinical Likelihood (CL) models, can reduce the need for diagnostic examinations without negatively impacting quality of life or prognosis after 12 months in patients with stable new onset chest pain. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 30 to 75 years
What is being tested?
Clinical Likelihood (CL) Model-Based Diagnostic Strategy
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
2,000 participants
Where
1 siteDenmark
Study dates
20 Nov 2024to 31 Dec 2027
Phase
Phase 3
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

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 30 to 75 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Patients with de novo chest pain referred on suspicion of stable ischemic CAD
  • Patients capable of providing written informed consent

Who cannot join

  • Age \<30 years or \>75 years
  • Known ischemic heart disease, including previous PCI (with or without stent) and bypass surgery
  • Unstable angina pectoris at initial consultation
  • Severe COPD or asthma
  • Severe valvular disease
  • Absolute or relative contraindications for Cardiac CT:
Show all 10Show fewer
  • allergy to iomeron
  • pregnant women, including women who are potentially pregnant or lactating
  • reduced kidney function with an estimated glomerular filtration rate \<40 ml/min
  • LVEF \<45%

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.

Denmark1 site
  • Regional Hospital of Godstrup

    Herning, 7400

Other trials in Denmark

About this study

Official title: Personalized Evaluation of Suspected Myocardial Ischemia

This study aims to assess whether the use of clinical risk models, known as Clinical Likelihood (CL) models, can reduce the need for diagnostic examinations without negatively impacting quality of life or prognosis after 12 months in patients with stable new onset chest pain. Additionally, the project will evaluate a newly developed method called Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging for measuring function and oxygen content in the smallest blood vessels (microvasculature) of the hand, which may also reflect blood flow and oxygen content in the microvasculature of the heart.

Read the detailed description

Ischemic heart disease poses a significant burden on society and affects many Danes annually. With more than 300,000 citizens in Denmark living with cardiovascular disease, and more than 17,500 cardiovascular deaths annually, the need for effective diagnosis and treatment is crucial. Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) has become an important tool in diagnosing arteriosclerotic obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with typical or atypical chest pain, but the increasing use of this method requires a more efficient selection of patients before initial testing. Early and accurate risk stratification could improve patient management, reduce morbidity, and improve patient outcomes, highlighting the importance of optimizing diagnostic pathways.

At Gødstrup Hospital, novel clinical likelihood (CL) models have been developed to assess the pre-test probability of obstructive CAD. Based on sex, age, and symptom characteristics, and including traditional cardiovascular risk factors, the risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood (RF-CL) model improves discrimination of obstructive CAD and prognosis compared to traditional models. Additionally, the utilization of a coronary artery calcium score (CACS) in conjunction with the RF-CL model, i.e., the CACS-weighted clinical likelihood (CACS-CL) model, further enhances patient management in external validation cohorts. Recently, both CL models have been implemented in the European guidelines on CAD management. However, the CL models have only been applied in observational studies, and no randomized trials substantiate their use in clinical practice.

It is hypothesized that a diagnostic strategy based on an assessment including the CL models is non-inferior to the current standard strategy, as measured by the number of asymptomatic patients during follow-up. Secondly, it is assumed that the CL-based strategy reduces unnecessary diagnostic tests and improve resource utilization without compromising patient safety.

Emerging alongside these developments is Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging (LSCI), a promising non-invasive technique for assessing microvascular function. Several studies have suggested a link between reduced microcirculation in the skin and heart among patients with angina and non-significant calcification, compared to healthy controls. LSCI measures red blood cell movement to quantify blood flow, making it an effective, fast, and cost-efficient tool already in use in other medical fields. If a correlation between peripheral and cardiac microcirculation is established, LSCI could address a diagnostic gap in detecting microvascular dysfunction, particularly for angina patients without significant coronary calcification. Integrating LSCI into the diagnostic process offers potential to further refine patient selection for testing and provide more targeted diagnostic pathways.

This study will increase the evidence for utilizing the RF-CL and CACS-CL models in clinical practice. Currently, the use of pre-test likelihood models is only recommended with a IB recommendation and deferral of diagnostic testing in individuals with CL>=5% with IIa B recommendation due to a lack of randomized studies. The study will focus on symptomatic endpoints and investigate quality of life measurements in patients deferred for testing based on the CL estimation. Secondary endpoints include both effectiveness and safety metrics.

This project is an ambitious endeavor that builds on previous work performed within our research group. The supervisors are experienced researchers with substantial expertise in this area and conducting randomized studies. The findings from this study have the potential to significantly impact clinical practice by providing evidence-based recommendations (Level/Class of evidence 1A) for the use of CL models in the diagnostic pathway of ischemic heart disease.

By demonstrating that using the CL model in the management of patients with new-onset chest pain substantially and safely reduces the necessity for cardiac CT and other advanced diagnostic procedures, resource utilization could improve and costs be lowered for the healthcare system. Additionally, as tests could be deferred without compromising safety, patient-related quality of life could improve. Finally, the findings are expected to contribute to clinical guidelines and practices, benefiting the broader field of cardiology. By validating the CL models in a large, diverse patient population, this study could provide strong evidence for their broader implementation in clinical practice.

The incorporation of LSCI into this framework also presents an exciting avenue for further improving diagnostic precision. If LSCI can reliably identify microvascular dysfunction, it could serve as a complementary tool in optimizing diagnostic strategies, particularly for patients in whom obstructive CAD has been ruled out but who still experience angina-like symptoms.

If CL model utilization proves capable of safely reducing the necessity for CCTA and other advanced diagnostic procedures in patients with obstructive CAD, resource utilization could improve, lowering costs for the healthcare system while maintaining or enhancing patient quality of life.

The present research addresses a significant gap in current diagnostic strategies and has the potential to shift clinical practices towards more personalized and efficient care pathways for stable chest pain.

Being tested
Clinical Likelihood (CL) Model-Based Diagnostic Strategy, Standard of care treatment
Keywords
Chronic Coronary Syndrome, Angina Pectoris, Coronary Artery Disease, Clinical Likelihood, Myocardial Ischemia, PERMI
Medical subject headings
Angina Pectoris, Coronary Artery Disease, Myocardial Ischemia, Arteriosclerosis

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Clinical Likelihood (CL) Model-Based Diagnostic StrategyDiagnostic test

    The Clinical Likelihood (CL) model-based diagnostic strategy utilizes two models: the RF-CL model and the CACS-CL model. These models assess the pre-test probability of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) based on patient factors such as age, sex, symptoms, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors like smoking, diabetes, and hypertension. The CACS-CL model incorporates coronary artery calcium scoring to further refine the risk assessment. Patients identified with a low likelihood of CAD may avoid unnecessary diagnostic testing, such as cardiac CT, while maintaining diagnostic accuracy and safety. This approach aims to optimize resource use, reduce patient burden, and focus on other potential causes of symptoms when CAD is unlikely.

  • Standard of care treatmentDiagnostic test

    Patients will follow the standard diagnostic pathway, which includes the use of cardiac CT and other advanced diagnostic procedures based on clinical guidelines. This approach is the current standard of care for patients with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). The control group allows for comparison of outcomes with those in the intervention arm, particularly in terms of resource utilization, patient safety, and diagnostic accuracy.

Study groups in NCT06708000
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Clinical Likelihood-Based Diagnostic StrategyExperimentalPatients in this arm will be assessed using the Clinical Likelihood (CL) models, including the Risk Factor-Weighted Clinical Likelihood (RF-CL) and Coronary Artery Calcium Score-Weighted Clinical Likelihood (CACS-CL) models.
Receives: Diagnostic Test: Clinical Likelihood (CL) Model-Based Diagnostic Strategy
Standard of CareActive comparatorPatients in this arm will follow the standard diagnostic pathway.
Receives: Diagnostic Test: Standard of care treatment

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Proportion of Asymptomatic Patients 6 Months After Inclusion

    Resolution 6 months after inclusion, as assessed by SAQ Angina Frequency score of 100%, indicating the absence of angina-related symptoms. This measure will assess the effectiveness of a diagnostic strategy based on Clinical Likelihood (CL) models compared to the standard approach for evaluating patients suspected of stable ischemic heart disease (IHD).

    Measured: From enrollment to 6 months after patient inclusion

Secondary outcomes (6)
  1. Sensitivity and Specificity for Detecting Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease (CAD)

    The study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the CL-based strategy in detecting obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) compared to the standard approach. The key metrics include sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). These outcomes will be aggregated and reported as percentages to assess the effectiveness of the diagnostic pathway.

    Measured: From enrollment to 12 months after patient inclusion.

  2. Proportion of Patients Undergoing Cardiac CT Imaging

    This measure evaluates the change in the proportion of patients who undergo cardiac CT imaging when managed with the Clinical Likelihood (CL)-based diagnostic strategy compared to the standard approach. The primary metric is the percentage of enrolled patients receiving cardiac CT scans during the diagnostic process. Data will be collected from diagnostic records and pathways utilized during patient care.

    Measured: From enrollment to 12 months after patient inclusion

  3. Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Scores for Quality of Life

    This outcome evaluates angina-specific quality of life using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ assesses multiple domains, including physical limitation, angina stability, angina frequency, treatment satisfaction, and disease perception. Scores range from 0 to 100 for each domain, with higher scores indicating better quality of life. Data will be collected at three time points to track changes in symptoms and their impact on daily activities.

    Measured: 3, 6, and 12 months after enrollment

  4. Dyspnea Assessment: Rose Dyspnea Score for Symptom Evaluation

    This outcome measures dyspnea severity using the Rose Dyspnea Score. The Rose Dyspnea Score assesses the impact of dyspnea on physical activity. Scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms.

    Measured: 3, 6 and 12 months after enrollment

  5. Correlation Between Peripheral and Cardiac Microvascular Function via LSCI

    This outcome will assess whether Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging (LSCI) can reliably detect microvascular dysfunction by evaluating the correlation between peripheral microvascular function (measured through LSCI) and cardiac microvascular function. The goal is to determine if LSCI can serve as a diagnostic tool for microvascular dysfunction in patients with chest pain, particularly those without significant coronary artery calcification. The outcome will examine the effectiveness of LSCI in identifying patients with potential microvascular dysfunction and explore its role in improving diagnostic accuracy.

    Measured: At baseline and 6 months after enrollement

  6. Long-term prognosis

    This outcome will assess whether the implementation of CL models impacts long-term prognosis. Prognosis will be assessed based on cardiovascular events and overall health status.

    Measured: 10 years

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted27 Nov 2024
  2. Study start20 Nov 2024
  3. Primary completion31 Dec 2027 (estimated)
  4. Study completion31 Dec 2027 (estimated)

Resources

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 3
Primary purpose
Diagnosis
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
The project is a randomized, multi-centre interventional study that includes patients without prior evaluation for obstructive CAD who are referred for cardiac CT based on clinically suspected stable ischemic heart disease. Participants are 1:1 randomized into either an intervention group where patient management relies on an initial CL evaluation, or a control group that adheres to current standard diagnostic procedures. This design allows for direct comparison of outcomes between the new and existing diagnostic strategies.
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Investigator
Enrolment
2,000 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06708000
Sponsor's protocol ID
1-10-72-47-24
Acronym
PERMI
Status last verified
Mar 2025
First submitted
13 Nov 2024
Last updated
19 Dec 2025
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No: Individual Patient Data cannot readily be shared according to Danish legislation. Pseudonymized data can be shared after approval by Danish authorities upon reasonable request to the principle investigator.

Publications

  • Winther S, Schmidt SE, Mayrhofer T, Botker HE, Hoffmann U, Douglas PS, Wijns W, Bax J, Nissen L, Lynggaard V, Christiansen JJ, Saraste A, Bottcher M, Knuuti J. Incorporating Coronary Calcification Into Pre-Test Assessment of the Likelihood of Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 24;76(21):2421-2432. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.585.

    PubMed 33213720
  • Brix GS, Rasmussen LD, Rohde PD, Schmidt SE, Nyegaard M, Douglas PS, Newby DE, Williams MC, Foldyna B, Knuuti J, Bottcher M, Winther S. Calcium Scoring Improves Clinical Management in Patients With Low Clinical Likelihood of Coronary Artery Disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024 Jun;17(6):625-639. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2023.11.008. Epub 2024 Jan 3.

    PubMed 38180413
  • Rasmussen LD, Fordyce CB, Nissen L, Hill CL Jr, Alhanti B, Hoffmann U, Udelson J, Bottcher M, Douglas PS, Winther S. The PROMISE Minimal Risk Score Improves Risk Classification of Symptomatic Patients With Suspected CAD. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022 Aug;15(8):1442-1454. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2022.03.009. Epub 2022 May 11.

    PubMed 35926903
  • Rasmussen LD, Williams MC, Newby DE, Dahl JN, Schmidt SE, Bottcher M, Winther S. External validation of novel clinical likelihood models to predict obstructive coronary artery disease and prognosis. Open Heart. 2023 Dec 6;10(2):e002457. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2023-002457.

    PubMed 38056915
  • Vrints C, Andreotti F, Koskinas KC, Rossello X, Adamo M, Ainslie J, Banning AP, Budaj A, Buechel RR, Chiariello GA, Chieffo A, Christodorescu RM, Deaton C, Doenst T, Jones HW, Kunadian V, Mehilli J, Milojevic M, Piek JJ, Pugliese F, Rubboli A, Semb AG, Senior R, Ten Berg JM, Van Belle E, Van Craenenbroeck EM, Vidal-Perez R, Winther S; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2024 Sep 29;45(36):3415-3537. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae177. No abstract available.

    PubMed 39210710

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 3 study testing Clinical Likelihood (CL) Model-Based Diagnostic Strategy in people with Chronic Coronary Syndrome and Angina Pectoris, run by Gødstrup Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.

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 2 inclusion and 10 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: enrolling by invitation, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Dec 2025. 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 Denmark. 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.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

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?

Proportion of Asymptomatic Patients 6 Months After Inclusion (time frame: From enrollment to 6 months after patient inclusion). 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 NCT06708000, which also lists 5 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 19 Dec 2025.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in