Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Objectives</h3> Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is the preferred non-invasive method for excluding coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with an intermediate pre-test probability or stable CAD and often replaces invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, patient acceptance and emotional responses to CCTA remain insufficiently studied. This study evaluated patient acceptance and emotional experiences during CCTA through patient-reported outcomes (PROs). <h3>Materials and methods</h3> A total of 151 patients with a clinical indication for CCTA underwent standardized Dual-Source CT or Photon-Counting CT of the heart; 69 of these patients had previously undergone ICA. After the examination, a voluntary and anonymous PRO survey was completed using a standardized questionnaire comprising 27 items assessing emotions before and during the procedures. Responses were rated on 5-point Likert scales and visual analogue scales and compared with reported emotional responses to ICA and other semi- or non-invasive cardiac diagnostic procedures, including transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and electrocardiography (ECG). <h3>Results</h3> Overall, 82% (124/151) of patients rated CCTA as "very pleasant" or "pleasant", compared to 29% (20/69) for ICA. 18% (27/151) rated CCTA as "very unpleasant" or "unpleasant", versus 71% (49/69) for ICA. Mean examination comfort was significantly higher for CCTA (4.3/5) than for ICA (2.0/5; p < 0.001). Fear prior to examination was reported in 39.7% (60/151) for CCTA vs. 66.7% (46/69) for ICA (p < 0.001). Other non-invasive cardiac procedures were rated as mostly neutral compared to CCTA (range 2.2–3.3; 3 = neutral). <h3>Conclusion</h3> CCTA is well tolerated and demonstrates significantly higher patient acceptance, with lower fear and discomfort, compared with ICA. <h3>Clinical relevance statement</h3> This study underscores the clinical advantages of non-invasive CCTA beyond its established diagnostic value, highlighting its benefits with respect to patient comfort and compliance.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Radiology Open
Published
2026-03-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2026.100743
Primary Topic
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography

European Journal of Radiology Open
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
article

Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography

article en

Abstract

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Objectives</h3> Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is the preferred non-invasive method for excluding coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with an intermediate pre-test probability or stable CAD and often replaces invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, patient acceptance and emotional responses to CCTA remain insufficiently studied. This study evaluated patient acceptance and emotional experiences during CCTA through patient-reported outcomes (PROs). <h3>Materials and methods</h3> A total of 151 patients with a clinical indication for CCTA underwent standardized Dual-Source CT or Photon-Counting CT of the heart; 69 of these patients had previously undergone ICA. After the examination, a voluntary and anonymous PRO survey was completed using a standardized questionnaire comprising 27 items assessing emotions before and during the procedures. Responses were rated on 5-point Likert scales and visual analogue scales and compared with reported emotional responses to ICA and other semi- or non-invasive cardiac diagnostic procedures, including transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and electrocardiography (ECG). <h3>Results</h3> Overall, 82% (124/151) of patients rated CCTA as "very pleasant" or "pleasant", compared to 29% (20/69) for ICA. 18% (27/151) rated CCTA as "very unpleasant" or "unpleasant", versus 71% (49/69) for ICA. Mean examination comfort was significantly higher for CCTA (4.3/5) than for ICA (2.0/5; p < 0.001). Fear prior to examination was reported in 39.7% (60/151) for CCTA vs. 66.7% (46/69) for ICA (p < 0.001). Other non-invasive cardiac procedures were rated as mostly neutral compared to CCTA (range 2.2–3.3; 3 = neutral). <h3>Conclusion</h3> CCTA is well tolerated and demonstrates significantly higher patient acceptance, with lower fear and discomfort, compared with ICA. <h3>Clinical relevance statement</h3> This study underscores the clinical advantages of non-invasive CCTA beyond its established diagnostic value, highlighting its benefits with respect to patient comfort and compliance.

European Journal of Radiology OpenVol. 16
Universitätsklinikum Aachen (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography · European Journal of Radiology Open (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS