Literature DB >> 26031971

Comparison of ESC and NICE guidelines for patients with suspected coronary artery disease: evaluation of the pre-test probability risk scores in clinical practice.

Ozan M Demir1, Peter Dobson1, Nikolaos D Papamichael1, Jonathan Byrne2, Sven Plein3, Khaled Alfakih4.   

Abstract

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have recently published guidelines for investigating patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Both provide a risk score (RS) to assess the pre-test probability for CAD to guide clinicians to undertake the most effective investigation. The aim of the study was to establish whether there is a difference between the two RS models. We retrospectively reviewed records of 479 patients who presented to a UK district general hospital with chest pain between August 2011 and April 2013. The RS was calculated using ESC and NICE guidelines and compared. From the 479 patients, 277 (58%) were male and the mean age was 60 years. The mean RS was greater using NICE guidelines compared with ESC (66.3 vs 47.9%, 18.4% difference; p<0.0001). The difference in mean RS was smaller in patients with typical chest pain (13.0%). When we divided the cohort based on NICE criteria into 'high'- and 'low'-risk groups, the difference in the mean RS was 24.3% in the 'high'-risk group (p<0.001) compared with 2.8% in the 'low'-risk group. The UK NICE risk score model overestimates risk compared with the ESC model. © Royal College of Physicians 2015. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ischemic heart disease; angina; cardiac CT; non-invasive functional tests; stress echocardiogram

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26031971      PMCID: PMC4953105          DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.15-3-234

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)        ISSN: 1470-2118            Impact factor:   2.659


  4 in total

1.  The 2016 update to NICE CG95 guideline for the -investigation of new onset stable chest pain: more -innovation, but at a cost?

Authors:  Khaled Alfakih; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 2.  Old and New NICE Guidelines for the Evaluation of New Onset Stable Chest Pain: A Real World Perspective.

Authors:  Nazario Carrabba; Angela Migliorini; Silvia Pradella; Manlio Acquafresca; Marco Guglielmo; Andrea Baggiano; Giuseppe Moscogiuri; Renato Valenti
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Use of artificial intelligence to assess the risk of coronary artery disease without additional (non-invasive) testing: validation in a low-risk to intermediate-risk outpatient clinic cohort.

Authors:  Casper G M J Eurlings; Sema Bektas; Sandra Sanders-van Wijk; Andrew Tsirkin; Vasily Vasilchenko; Steven J R Meex; Michael Failer; Caroline Oehri; Peter Ruff; Michael J Zellweger; Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 3.006

4.  Pre-test probability risk scores and their use in contemporary management of patients with chest pain: One year stress echo cohort study.

Authors:  Daniela Cassar Demarco; Alexandros Papachristidis; Damian Roper; Ioannis Tsironis; Jonathan Byrne; Khaled Alfakih; Mark Monaghan
Journal:  JRSM Open       Date:  2015-10-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.