Christoph Sinning1, Elvin Zengin1, Christoph Waldeyer1, Moritz Seiffert1, Renate B Schnabel1, Edith Lubos1, Tanja Zeller1, Christoph Bickel2, Stefan Blankenberg1, Peter M Clemmensen3, Dirk Westermann4. 1. Department of General and Interventional Cardiology, University Heart Center Hamburg, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Federal Armed Forces Central Hospital, Koblenz, Germany. 3. Department of General and Interventional Cardiology, University Heart Center Hamburg, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. p.clemmensen@uke.de. 4. Department of General and Interventional Cardiology, University Heart Center Hamburg, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. d.westermann@uke.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The complexity of coronary artery disease (CAD) is a predictor of cardiovascular events in patients with >50 % diameter stenosis as determined by SYNTAX score. Here, we compare the Gensini score to SYNTAX in patients with CAD as well as apply the Gensini score in patients with nonobstructive CAD (NOB-CAD), defined by ≤50 % diameter stenosis, were the SYNTAX score cannot be utilized to define future risk. METHODS: The AtheroGene study enrolled 2316 patients [861/37.2 % with acute cardiovascular syndrome (ACS) and 1500/62.8 % with stable CAD (SCAD)]. Of these, 1966 had obstructive CAD (OB-CAD) with SYNTAX and Gensini scores available and 291 events with either cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction were recorded. Furthermore, 350 patients had NOB-CAD with only Gensini score and 36 events. Median follow-up time was 4.9 years. RESULTS: In the OB-CAD cohort the SYNTAX and the Gensini score predicted outcome. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis with the dichotomized Gensini score showed a significant result (p = 0.04) in the NOB-CAD cohort. Cox Regression analysis after adjustment showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 and p = 0.04 for the Gensini score in the NOB-CAD cohort. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis provided the highest area under the curve (AUC) regarding the outcome for the Gensini score with 0.65 (p = 0.004). Comparing the SYNTAX and Gensini score in this cohort showed improved discrimination of patients with events by the Gensini score (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The Gensini score predicted events in patients with ≤50 % diameter lesions. Utilization of this score is useful to define risk in NOB-CAD patients.
BACKGROUND: The complexity of coronary artery disease (CAD) is a predictor of cardiovascular events in patients with >50 % diameter stenosis as determined by SYNTAX score. Here, we compare the Gensini score to SYNTAX in patients with CAD as well as apply the Gensini score in patients with nonobstructive CAD (NOB-CAD), defined by ≤50 % diameter stenosis, were the SYNTAX score cannot be utilized to define future risk. METHODS: The AtheroGene study enrolled 2316 patients [861/37.2 % with acute cardiovascular syndrome (ACS) and 1500/62.8 % with stable CAD (SCAD)]. Of these, 1966 had obstructive CAD (OB-CAD) with SYNTAX and Gensini scores available and 291 events with either cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction were recorded. Furthermore, 350 patients had NOB-CAD with only Gensini score and 36 events. Median follow-up time was 4.9 years. RESULTS: In the OB-CAD cohort the SYNTAX and the Gensini score predicted outcome. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis with the dichotomized Gensini score showed a significant result (p = 0.04) in the NOB-CAD cohort. Cox Regression analysis after adjustment showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 and p = 0.04 for the Gensini score in the NOB-CAD cohort. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis provided the highest area under the curve (AUC) regarding the outcome for the Gensini score with 0.65 (p = 0.004). Comparing the SYNTAX and Gensini score in this cohort showed improved discrimination of patients with events by the Gensini score (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The Gensini score predicted events in patients with ≤50 % diameter lesions. Utilization of this score is useful to define risk in NOB-CAD patients.
Authors: Thomas M Maddox; Maggie A Stanislawski; Gary K Grunwald; Steven M Bradley; P Michael Ho; Thomas T Tsai; Manesh R Patel; Amneet Sandhu; Javier Valle; David J Magid; Benjamin Leon; Deepak L Bhatt; Stephan D Fihn; John S Rumsfeld Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-11-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Carl J Pepine; Keith C Ferdinand; Leslee J Shaw; Kelly Ann Light-McGroary; Rashmee U Shah; Martha Gulati; Claire Duvernoy; Mary Norine Walsh; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nina Johnston; Birgitta Jönelid; Christina Christersson; Tanja Kero; Henrik Renlund; Karin Schenck-Gustafsson; Bo Lagerqvist Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: David Planer; Roxana Mehran; E Magnus Ohman; Harvey D White; Jonathan D Newman; Ke Xu; Gregg W Stone Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Ruchira Glaser; Faith Selzer; David P Faxon; Warren K Laskey; Howard A Cohen; James Slater; Katherine M Detre; Robert L Wilensky Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-12-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Patrick W Serruys; Yoshinobu Onuma; Scot Garg; Giovanna Sarno; Marcel van den Brand; Arie-Pieter Kappetein; Nic Van Dyck; Michael Mack; David Holmes; Ted Feldman; Marie-Claude Morice; Antonio Colombo; Eric Bass; Katrin Leadley; Keith D Dawkins; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Marie-Angèle M Morel; Friedrich W Mohr Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Marco M Ochs; Fabian Aus dem Siepen; Thomas Fritz; Florian Andre; Gitsios Gitsioudis; Grigorios Korosoglou; Sebastian Seitz; Yuriy Bogomazov; Christopher L Schlett; Roman Sokiranski; Andre Sommer; Friedemann Gückel; Matthias Brado; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Johannes Görich; Matthias G W Friedrich; Hugo A Katus; Sebastian J Buss Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Junjie Yang; David W Biery; Avinainder Singh; Sanjay Divakaran; Ersilia M DeFilippis; Wanda Y Wu; Josh Klein; Jon Hainer; Mattheus Ramsis; Pradeep Natarajan; James L Januzzi; Khurram Nasir; Deepak L Bhatt; Marcelo F Di Carli; Ron Blankstein Journal: Am J Med Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 4.965