Coronary CT angiography for acute chest pain in the emergency department

• The conventional strategy of evaluating acute chest pain is effective but time consuming and resource intensive.
• Coronary CT angiography (CTA) for evaluation of acute chest pain is safe and diagnostically accurate.
• CTA in the emergency department (ED) may reduce ED length of stay, ED cost, and hospital stay.
• CTA in the ED is associated with increased radiation and coronary revascularization.
• The effect of CTA on index hospital and future health care cost requires additional study.

Acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED) is a common and costly public health challenge. The traditional strategy of evaluating acute chest pain by hospital or ED observation over a period of several hours, serial electrocardiography and cardiac biomarkers, and subsequent diagnostic testing such as physiologic stress testing is safe and effective. Yet this approach has been criticized for being time intensive and costly. This review evaluates the current medical evidence which has demonstrated the potential for coronary CT angiography (CTA) assessment of acute chest pain to safely reduce ED cost, time to discharge, and rate of hospital admission. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of ionizing radiation exposure and the influence of ED testing on rates of downstream coronary angiography and revascularization. Efforts at radiation minimization have quickly evolved, implementing technology such as prospective electrocardiographic gating and high pitch acquisition to significantly reduce radiation exposure over just a few years. CTA in the ED has demonstrated accuracy, safety, and the ability to reduce ED cost and crowding although its big-picture effect on total hospital and health care system cost extends far beyond the ED. The net effect of CTA is dependent also on the prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in the population where CTA is used, which significantly influences rates of post-CTA invasive procedures such as angiography and coronary revascularization. These potential costs and benefits will warrant careful consideration and prospective monitoring as additional hospitals continue to implement this important technology into their diagnostic regimen.