STABLE CHEST PAIN: CTA ± FFR-CT VERSUS FUNCTIONAL TESTING AND THE IMPACT ON UNNECESSARY INVASIVE ANGIOGRAPHY
Keywords:
Angiography, coronary computed tomography, myocardial ischemia, fractional flow reserve, stress testing, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomographyAbstract
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46296/gt.v8i16.0313
Abstract
Stable chest pain requires diagnostic pathways that minimize invasive coronary angiography without obstructive disease and optimize outcomes. This critical review appraises recent evidence comparing an anatomic strategy centered on coronary computed tomographic angiography—with selective use of computed-tomography–derived fractional flow reserve—versus functional ischemia testing (stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, positron-emission tomography, and stress cardiac magnetic resonance). We prioritized randomized trials, meta-analyses, comparative cohorts, and guidelines since 2016, focusing on invasive angiography without significant stenosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, appropriate revascularization, downstream testing, radiation, contrast exposure, and costs. Overall, the anatomic approach lowers the rate of “negative” catheterizations, concentrates invasive procedures on lesions with hemodynamic significance, and enhances prevention by uncovering non-obstructive coronary disease; this combination is associated with fewer myocardial infarctions at intermediate follow-up. Functional imaging remains valuable when computed tomography underperforms (extensive calcification, arrhythmias, severe obesity, prior revascularization, kidney dysfunction) and to quantify ischemic burden or diagnose microvascular angina. Both strategies are safe; computed-tomography–derived fractional flow reserve adds no additional radiation. A pragmatic algorithm is proposed: base test selection on pretest probability and coronary calcium. Use computed tomographic angiography as first-line in low-to-intermediate risk, add computed-tomography–derived fractional flow reserve for intermediate stenoses, and prioritize functional imaging when anatomy is poorly evaluable or clinical context demands it. This integrated approach reduces unnecessary invasive angiography without compromising clinical outcomes.
Keywords: Angiography, coronary computed tomography, myocardial ischemia, fractional flow reserve, stress testing, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography.
Downloads
References
Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease in symptomatic patients. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1291-1300.
Newby DE, Adamson PD, Berry C, et al. Coronary CT angiography and 5-year risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(10):924-933.
DISCHARGE Trial Group. CT or invasive coronary angiography in stable chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(17):1591-1602.
Greenwood JP, Ripley DP, Berry C, et al. Effect of care guided by CMR, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, or NICE guidelines on unnecessary angiography rates: CE-MARC 2. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1051-1060.
Lubbers MM, Dedic A, Coenen A, et al. Calcium imaging and selective CT angiography in comparison to functional testing for suspected CAD: the CRESCENT trial. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(15):1232-1243.
Lubbers M, Coenen A, Kofflard M, et al. Comprehensive cardiac CT with myocardial perfusion vs functional testing in suspected CAD (CRESCENT-II). JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(11):1625-1636.
Douglas PS, De Bruyne B, Pontone G, et al. 1-Year outcomes of FFRCT-guided care in patients with suspected CAD: the PLATFORM study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(5):435-445.
Douglas PS, Nanna MG, Ahluwalia M, et al. Risk-based evaluation of chest pain and the PRECISE trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2023;8(9):904-914.
Machado MF, Felix N, Melo PHC, et al. Coronary CT angiography vs invasive angiography in stable chest pain: meta-analysis of RCTs. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;16(11):e015800.
Patel MR, Dai D, Hernandez AF, et al. Prevalence and predictors of nonobstructive coronary disease on angiography in patients with NSTEMI. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(5):450-455.
Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(3):407-477.
Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, et al. 2021 AHA/ACC guideline for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain. Circulation. 2021;144(22):e368-e454.
Patel MR, Calhoon JH, Dehmer GJ, et al. 2017 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(17):2212-2241.
Nagel E, Greenwood JP, McCann GP, et al. Magnetic resonance perfusion or fractional flow reserve in coronary disease (MR-INFORM): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10195):891-897.
Pontone G, Johnson NP, Cerrato N, et al. Calcium score and CT angiography in stable chest pain: interaction with pre-test probability and impact on downstream testing. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;21(11):1219-1228.
Kunadian V, Chieffo A, Camici PG, et al. An EAPCI expert consensus document on ischemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA). Eur Heart J. 2020;41(37):3504-3520.
Koh AS, Pereira VS, Lin C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of FFRCT-guided care vs standard care in patients with stable chest pain: FORECAST trial analysis. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2022;8(4):368-376.
Bavry AA, Chinnaiyan KM, Gore RM, et al. SCOT-HEART trial: 5-year outcomes of CTA vs standard care in chest pain. ACC Curr J Rev. 2018;27(23):10.
Nørgaard BL, Terkelsen CJ, Mathiassen ON, et al. CT angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: insights from the Western Denmark Heart Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(14):1767-1775.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 GESTAR Arbitrated Scientific Journal in Health Research. ISSN: 2737-6273.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
















