BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the management of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) rely on the age, sex, and angina typicality-based pretest probabilities of angiographically significant CAD derived from invasive coronary angiography (guideline probabilities). Reliability of guideline probabilities has not been investigated in patients referred to noninvasive CAD testing. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 14048 consecutive patients with suspected CAD who underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography. Angina typicality was recorded with the use of accepted criteria. Pretest likelihoods of CAD with ≥ 50 diameter stenosis (CAD50) and ≥ 70 diameter stenosis (CAD70) were calculated from guideline probabilities. Computed tomographic angiography images were evaluated by ≥ 1 expert reader to determine the presence of CAD50 and CAD70. Typical angina was associated with the highest prevalence of CAD50 (40 in men, 19 in women) and CAD70 (27 men, 11 women) compared with other symptom categories (P<0.001 for all). Observed CAD50 and CAD70 prevalences were substantially lower than those predicted by guideline probabilities in the overall population (18 versus 51 for CAD50, 10 versus 42 for CAD70; P<0.001), driven by pronounced differences in patients with atypical angina (15 versus 47 for CAD50, 7 versus 37 for CAD70) and typical angina (29 versus 86 for CAD50, 19 versus 71 for CAD70). Marked overestimation of disease prevalence by guideline probabilities was found at all participating centers and across all sex and age subgroups. CONCLUSION: In this multinational study of patients referred for coronary computed tomographic angiography, determination of pretest likelihood of angiographically significant CAD by the invasive angiography-based guideline probabilities greatly overestimates the actual prevalence of disease.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the management of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) rely on the age, sex, and angina typicality-based pretest probabilities of angiographically significant CAD derived from invasive coronary angiography (guideline probabilities). Reliability of guideline probabilities has not been investigated in patients referred to noninvasive CAD testing. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 14048 consecutive patients with suspected CAD who underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography. Angina typicality was recorded with the use of accepted criteria. Pretest likelihoods of CAD with ≥ 50 diameter stenosis (CAD50) and ≥ 70 diameter stenosis (CAD70) were calculated from guideline probabilities. Computed tomographic angiography images were evaluated by ≥ 1 expert reader to determine the presence of CAD50 and CAD70. Typical angina was associated with the highest prevalence of CAD50 (40 in men, 19 in women) and CAD70 (27 men, 11 women) compared with other symptom categories (P<0.001 for all). Observed CAD50 and CAD70 prevalences were substantially lower than those predicted by guideline probabilities in the overall population (18 versus 51 for CAD50, 10 versus 42 for CAD70; P<0.001), driven by pronounced differences in patients with atypical angina (15 versus 47 for CAD50, 7 versus 37 for CAD70) and typical angina (29 versus 86 for CAD50, 19 versus 71 for CAD70). Marked overestimation of disease prevalence by guideline probabilities was found at all participating centers and across all sex and age subgroups. CONCLUSION: In this multinational study of patients referred for coronary computed tomographic angiography, determination of pretest likelihood of angiographically significant CAD by the invasive angiography-based guideline probabilities greatly overestimates the actual prevalence of disease.
Authors: L Campeau; M G Bourassa; M A Bois; J Saltiel; J Lesperance; O Rico; J L Delcan; M Telleria Journal: Can Med Assoc J Date: 1968-12-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: James K Min; Allison Dunning; Fay Y Lin; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Victor Cheng; Kavitha M Chinnaiyan; Benjamin Chow; Augustin Delago; Martin Hadamitzky; Jorg Hausleiter; Ronald P Karlsberg; Philipp Kaufmann; Erica Maffei; Khurram Nasir; Michael J Pencina; Gilbert L Raff; Leslee J Shaw; Todd C Villines Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2011-02-01
Authors: W Bob Meijboom; Matthijs F L Meijs; Joanne D Schuijf; Maarten J Cramer; Nico R Mollet; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Koen Nieman; Jacob M van Werkhoven; Gabija Pundziute; Annick C Weustink; Alexander M de Vos; Francesca Pugliese; Benno Rensing; J Wouter Jukema; Jeroen J Bax; Mathias Prokop; Pieter A Doevendans; Myriam G M Hunink; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Raymond J Gibbons; Jonathan Abrams; Kanu Chatterjee; Jennifer Daley; Prakash C Deedwania; John S Douglas; T Bruce Ferguson; Stephan D Fihn; Theodore D Fraker; Julius M Gardin; Robert A O'Rourke; Richard C Pasternak; Sankey V Williams; Raymond J Gibbons; Joseph S Alpert; Elliott M Antman; Loren F Hiratzka; Valentin Fuster; David P Faxon; Gabriel Gregoratos; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rine Nakanishi; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Heidi Gransar; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Daniele Andreini; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Victor Y Cheng; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Ricardo Cury; Augustin Delago; Martin Hadamitzky; Jörg Hausleiter; Gudrun Feuchtner; Yong-Jin Kim; Philipp A Kaufmann; Jonathon Leipsic; Fay Y Lin; Erica Maffei; Gianluca Pontone; Gilbert Raff; Leslee J Shaw; Todd C Villines; Allison Dunning; James K Min Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-02-08 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Christopher B Fordyce; Pamela S Douglas; Rhonda S Roberts; Udo Hoffmann; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Manesh R Patel; Christopher B Granger; John Kostis; Daniel B Mark; Kerry L Lee; James E Udelson Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Edward Hulten; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Brian Ghoshhajra; Daniel O'Leary; Mitalee P Christman; Michael J Blaha; Quynh Truong; Kyle Nelson; Philip Montana; Michael Steigner; Frank Rybicki; Jon Hainer; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann; Marcelo F Di Carli; Khurram Nasir; Suhny Abbara; Ron Blankstein Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Robert Roehle; Viktoria Wieske; Georg M Schuetz; Pascal Gueret; Daniele Andreini; Willem Bob Meijboom; Gianluca Pontone; Mario Garcia; Hatem Alkadhi; Lily Honoris; Jörg Hausleiter; Nuno Bettencourt; Elke Zimmermann; Sebastian Leschka; Bernhard Gerber; Carlos Rochitte; U Joseph Schoepf; Abbas Arjmand Shabestari; Bjarne Nørgaard; Akira Sato; Juhani Knuuti; Matthijs F L Meijs; Harald Brodoefel; Shona M M Jenkins; Kristian Altern Øvrehus; Axel Cosmus Pyndt Diederichsen; Ashraf Hamdan; Bjørn Arild Halvorsen; Vladimir Mendoza Rodriguez; Yung Liang Wan; Johannes Rixe; Mehraj Sheikh; Christoph Langer; Said Ghostine; Eugenio Martuscelli; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Arthur Scholte; Konstantin Nikolaou; Geir Ulimoen; Zhaoqi Zhang; Hans Mickley; Koen Nieman; Philipp A Kaufmann; Ronny Ralf Buechel; Bernhard A Herzog; Melvin Clouse; David A Halon; Jonathan Leipsic; David Bush; Reda Jakamy; Kai Sun; Lin Yang; Thorsten Johnson; Jean-Pierre Laissy; Roy Marcus; Simone Muraglia; Jean-Claude Tardif; Benjamin Chow; Narinder Paul; David Maintz; John Hoe; Albert de Roos; Robert Haase; Michael Laule; Peter Schlattmann; Marc Dewey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Daniel S Berman; Heidi Gransar; Mark Hyun; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Faith C Kite; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Alan Rozanski; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 5.952