Lohendran Baskaran1, Ibrahim Danad2, Heidi Gransar2, Bríain Ó Hartaigh2, Joshua Schulman-Marcus2, Fay Y Lin2, Jessica M Peña2, Amanda Hunter3, David E Newby3, Philip D Adamson3, James K Min4. 1. Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York; National Heart Centre, Singapore. 2. Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 3. University of Edinburgh/BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. Electronic address: jkm2001@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of history-based risk scores in predicting obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) among patients with stable chest pain from the SCOT-HEART study. BACKGROUND:Risk scores for estimating pre-test probability of CAD are derived from referral-based populations with a high prevalence of disease. The generalizability of these scores to lower prevalence populations in the initial patient encounter for chest pain is uncertain. METHODS: We compared 3 scores among patients with suspected CAD in the coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) randomized arm of the SCOT-HEART study for the outcome of obstructive CAD by coronary CTA: the updated Diamond-Forrester score (UDF), CAD Consortium clinical score (CAD2), and CONFIRM risk score (CRS). We tested calibration with goodness-of-fit, discrimination with area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC), and reclassification with net reclassification improvement (NRI) to identify low-risk patients. RESULTS: In 1,738 patients (age 58 ± 10 years and 44.0% women), overall calibration was best for UDF, with underestimation by CRS and CAD2. Discrimination by AUC was highest for CAD2 at 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77 to 0.81) than for UDF (0.77 [95% CI: 0.74 to 0.79]) or CRS (0.75 [95% CI: 0.73 to 0.77]) (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Reclassification of low-risk patients at the 10% probability threshold was best for CAD2 (NRI 0.31, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.35) followed by CRS (NRI 0.21, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.25) compared with UDF (p < 0.001 for all comparisons), with a consistent trend at the 15% threshold. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter clinic-based cohort of patients with suspected CAD and uniform CAD evaluation by coronary CTA, CAD2 provided the best discrimination and classification, despite overestimation of obstructive CAD as evaluated by coronary CTA. CRS exhibited intermediate performance followed by UDF for discrimination and reclassification.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of history-based risk scores in predicting obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) among patients with stable chest pain from the SCOT-HEART study. BACKGROUND: Risk scores for estimating pre-test probability of CAD are derived from referral-based populations with a high prevalence of disease. The generalizability of these scores to lower prevalence populations in the initial patient encounter for chest pain is uncertain. METHODS: We compared 3 scores among patients with suspected CAD in the coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) randomized arm of the SCOT-HEART study for the outcome of obstructive CAD by coronary CTA: the updated Diamond-Forrester score (UDF), CAD Consortium clinical score (CAD2), and CONFIRM risk score (CRS). We tested calibration with goodness-of-fit, discrimination with area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC), and reclassification with net reclassification improvement (NRI) to identify low-risk patients. RESULTS: In 1,738 patients (age 58 ± 10 years and 44.0% women), overall calibration was best for UDF, with underestimation by CRS and CAD2. Discrimination by AUC was highest for CAD2 at 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77 to 0.81) than for UDF (0.77 [95% CI: 0.74 to 0.79]) or CRS (0.75 [95% CI: 0.73 to 0.77]) (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Reclassification of low-risk patients at the 10% probability threshold was best for CAD2 (NRI 0.31, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.35) followed by CRS (NRI 0.21, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.25) compared with UDF (p < 0.001 for all comparisons), with a consistent trend at the 15% threshold. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter clinic-based cohort of patients with suspected CAD and uniform CAD evaluation by coronary CTA, CAD2 provided the best discrimination and classification, despite overestimation of obstructive CAD as evaluated by coronary CTA. CRS exhibited intermediate performance followed by UDF for discrimination and reclassification.
Authors: Subhi J Al'Aref; Gabriel Maliakal; Gurpreet Singh; Alexander R van Rosendael; Xiaoyue Ma; Zhuoran Xu; Omar Al Hussein Alawamlh; Benjamin Lee; Mohit Pandey; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Daniele Andreini; Jeroen J Bax; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Ricardo C Cury; Augustin DeLago; Gudrun Feuchtner; Martin Hadamitzky; Joerg Hausleiter; Philipp A Kaufmann; Yong-Jin Kim; Jonathon A Leipsic; Erica Maffei; Hugo Marques; Pedro de Araújo Gonçalves; Gianluca Pontone; Gilbert L Raff; Ronen Rubinshtein; Todd C Villines; Heidi Gransar; Yao Lu; Erica C Jones; Jessica M Peña; Fay Y Lin; James K Min; Leslee J Shaw Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Márton Kolossváry; Thomas Mayrhofer; Maros Ferencik; Júlia Karády; Neha J Pagidipati; Svati H Shah; Michael G Nanna; Borek Foldyna; Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann; Michael T Lu Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2022-03-26
Authors: Jagat Narula; Y Chandrashekhar; Amir Ahmadi; Suhny Abbara; Daniel S Berman; Ron Blankstein; Jonathon Leipsic; David Newby; Edward D Nicol; Koen Nieman; Leslee Shaw; Todd C Villines; Michelle Williams; Harvey S Hecht Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2020-11-20
Authors: Sarah Feger; Paolo Ibes; Adriane E Napp; Alexander Lembcke; Michael Laule; Henryk Dreger; Björn Bokelmann; Gershan K Davis; Giles Roditi; Ignacio Diez; Stephen Schröder; Fabian Plank; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Radosav Vidakovic; Josef Veselka; Malgorzata Ilnicka-Suckiel; Andrejs Erglis; Teodora Benedek; José Rodriguez-Palomares; Luca Saba; Klaus F Kofoed; Matthias Gutberlet; Filip Ađić; Mikko Pietilä; Rita Faria; Audrone Vaitiekiene; Jonathan D Dodd; Patrick Donnelly; Marco Francone; Cezary Kepka; Balazs Ruzsics; Jacqueline Müller-Nordhorn; Peter Schlattmann; Marc Dewey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 5.315