Trial reportEuropean heart journal2025
Acoustic-based rule-out of stable coronary artery disease: the FILTER-SCAD trial.
Trial report in European heart journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing diagnostic resource use in suspected chronic coronary syndrome: pre-test probability and acoustic CAD rule-out in the FILTER-SCAD trial.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Comparison of coronary artery calcium score-based and all-coronary computed tomography angiography strategies in patients with stable chest pain and risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood of 5-15.BMC medical imaging · 2026Observational
- Diagnostic performance of combined biomarkers and phonocardiography vs. the 2024 ESC risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood model for detecting coronary artery disease.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
- Pre-test probability estimation of coronary artery disease can be improved by adding an acoustic-based risk score.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsOvertesting of low-risk patients with suspect chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) is widespread. The acoustic-based coronary artery disease (CAD)-score has superior rule-out capabilities when added to pre-test probability (PTP). FILTER-SCAD tested whether providing a CAD-score and PTP to cardiologists was superior to PTP alone in limiting testing.
methodsAt six Danish and Swedish outpatient clinics, patients with suspected new-onset CCS were randomized to either standard diagnostic examination (SDE) with PTP, or SDE plus CAD-score, and cardiologists provided with corresponding recommended diagnostic flowcharts. The primary endpoint was cumulative number of diagnostic tests at one year and key safety endpoint major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
resultsIn total, 2008 patients (46% male, median age 63 years) were randomized from October 2019 to September 2022. When randomized to CAD-score (n = 1002), it was successfully measured in 94.5%. Overall, 13.5% had PTP ≤ 5%, and 39.5% had CAD-score ≤ 20. Testing was deferred in 22% with no differences in diagnostic tests between groups (P for superiority = .56). In the PTP ≤ 5% subgroup, the proportion with deferred testing increased from 28% to 52% (P < .001). Overall MACE was 2.4 per 100 person-years. Non-inferiority regarding safety was established, absolute risk difference 0.49% (95% confidence interval -1.96-0.97) (P for non-inferiority = .003). No differences were seen in angina-related health status or quality of life.
conclusionsThe implementation strategy of providing cardiologists with a CAD-score alongside SDE did not reduce testing overall but indicated a possible role in patients with low CCS likelihood. Further strategies are warranted to address resistance to modifying diagnostic pathways in this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.