Neha J Pagidipati1, Kshipra Hemal2, Adrian Coles2, Daniel B Mark2, Rowena J Dolor3, Patricia A Pellikka4, Udo Hoffmann5, Sheldon E Litwin6, James Udelson7, Melissa A Daubert2, Svati H Shah3, Beth Martinez2, Kerry L Lee2, Pamela S Douglas2. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: neha.pagidipati@dm.duke.edu. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 7. Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although risk stratification is an important goal of cardiac noninvasive tests (NITs), few contemporary data exist on the prognostic value of different NITs according to patient sex. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare the results and prognostic information derived from anatomic versus stress testing in stable men and women with suspected coronary artery disease. METHODS: In 8,966 patients tested at randomization (4,500 to computed tomography angiography [CTA], 52% female; 4,466 to stress testing, 53% female), we assessed the relationship between sex and NIT results and between sex and a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalization. RESULTS: In women, a positive CTA (≥70% stenosis) was less likely than a positive stress test result (8% vs. 12%; adjusted odds ratio: 0.67). Compared with negative test results, a positive CTA was more strongly associated with subsequent clinical events than a positive stress test result (CTA-adjusted hazard ratio of 5.86 vs. stress-adjusted hazard ratio of 2.27; adjusted p = 0.028). Men were more likely to have a positive CTA than a positive stress test result (16% vs. 14%; adjusted odds ratio: 1.23). Compared with negative test results, a positive CTA was less strongly associated with subsequent clinical events than a positive stress test result in men, although this difference was not statistically significant (adjusted p = 0.168). Negative CTA and stress test results were equally likely to predict an event in both sexes. A significant interaction between sex, NIT type, and test result (p = 0.01) suggests that sex and NIT type jointly influence the relationship between test result and clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic value of an NIT result varies according to test type and patient sex. Women seem to derive more prognostic information from a CTA, whereas men tend to derive similar prognostic value from both test types.
BACKGROUND: Although risk stratification is an important goal of cardiac noninvasive tests (NITs), few contemporary data exist on the prognostic value of different NITs according to patient sex. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare the results and prognostic information derived from anatomic versus stress testing in stable men and women with suspected coronary artery disease. METHODS: In 8,966 patients tested at randomization (4,500 to computed tomography angiography [CTA], 52% female; 4,466 to stress testing, 53% female), we assessed the relationship between sex and NIT results and between sex and a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalization. RESULTS: In women, a positive CTA (≥70% stenosis) was less likely than a positive stress test result (8% vs. 12%; adjusted odds ratio: 0.67). Compared with negative test results, a positive CTA was more strongly associated with subsequent clinical events than a positive stress test result (CTA-adjusted hazard ratio of 5.86 vs. stress-adjusted hazard ratio of 2.27; adjusted p = 0.028). Men were more likely to have a positive CTA than a positive stress test result (16% vs. 14%; adjusted odds ratio: 1.23). Compared with negative test results, a positive CTA was less strongly associated with subsequent clinical events than a positive stress test result in men, although this difference was not statistically significant (adjusted p = 0.168). Negative CTA and stress test results were equally likely to predict an event in both sexes. A significant interaction between sex, NIT type, and test result (p = 0.01) suggests that sex and NIT type jointly influence the relationship between test result and clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic value of an NIT result varies according to test type and patient sex. Women seem to derive more prognostic information from a CTA, whereas men tend to derive similar prognostic value from both test types.
Authors: David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson; Harmon S Jordan; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jennifer H Mieres; Martha Gulati; Noel Bairey Merz; Daniel S Berman; Thomas C Gerber; Sharonne N Hayes; Christopher M Kramer; James K Min; L Kristin Newby; J V Ian Nixon; Monvadi B Srichai; Patricia A Pellikka; Rita F Redberg; Nanette K Wenger; Leslee J Shaw Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; William F Fearon; Bernard De Bruyne; Keith G Oldroyd; Massoud A Leesar; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A Maccarthy; Marcel Van't Veer; Nico H J Pijls Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Tessa S S Genders; Ewout W Steyerberg; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Leschka; Lotus Desbiolles; Koen Nieman; Tjebbe W Galema; W Bob Meijboom; Nico R Mollet; Pim J de Feyter; Filippo Cademartiri; Erica Maffei; Marc Dewey; Elke Zimmermann; Michael Laule; Francesca Pugliese; Rossella Barbagallo; Valentin Sinitsyn; Jan Bogaert; Kaatje Goetschalckx; U Joseph Schoepf; Garrett W Rowe; Joanne D Schuijf; Jeroen J Bax; Fleur R de Graaf; Juhani Knuuti; Sami Kajander; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Matthijs F L Meijs; Maarten J Cramer; Deepa Gopalan; Gudrun Feuchtner; Guy Friedrich; Gabriel P Krestin; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; C Noel Bairey Merz; Carl J Pepine; Steven E Reis; Vera Bittner; Sheryl F Kelsey; Marian Olson; B Delia Johnson; Sunil Mankad; Barry L Sharaf; William J Rogers; Timothy R Wessel; Christopher B Arant; Gerald M Pohost; Amir Lerman; Arshed A Quyyumi; George Sopko Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-02-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Barry Sharaf; Todd Wood; Leslee Shaw; B Delia Johnson; Sheryl Kelsey; R David Anderson; Carl J Pepine; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: J C Kaski; G M Rosano; P Collins; P Nihoyannopoulos; A Maseri; P A Poole-Wilson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-03-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Tessa S S Genders; Adrian Coles; Udo Hoffmann; Manesh R Patel; Daniel B Mark; Kerry L Lee; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink; Pamela S Douglas Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-06-14
Authors: Abhinav Sharma; Adrian Coles; Nishant K Sekaran; Neha J Pagidipati; Michael T Lu; Daniel B Mark; Kerry L Lee; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Udo Hoffmann; Pamela S Douglas Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael T Lu; Pamela S Douglas; James E Udelson; Elizabeth Adami; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Michael H Picard; Rhonda Roberts; Kerry L Lee; Andrew J Einstein; Daniel B Mark; Eric J Velazquez; William Carter; Michael Ridner; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Udo Hoffmann Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2017-08-15
Authors: Viviany R Taqueti; Sharmila Dorbala; David Wolinsky; Brian Abbott; Gary V Heller; Timothy M Bateman; Jennifer H Mieres; Lawrence M Phillips; Nanette K Wenger; Leslee J Shaw Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Joseph A Ladapo; John M Pfeifer; James M Pitcavage; Brent A Williams; Alana A Choy-Shan Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 2.681