Daniel O Bittner1, Thomas Mayrhofer2, Matt Budoff3, Balint Szilveszter4, Borek Foldyna5, Travis R Hallett5, Alexander Ivanov5, Sumbal Janjua5, Nandini M Meyersohn5, Pedro V Staziaki5, Stephan Achenbach6, Maros Ferencik7, Pamela S Douglas8, Udo Hoffmann5, Michael T Lu5. 1. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Department of Cardiology, Erlangen, Germany. Electronic address: daniel.bittner@uk-erlangen.de. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; School of Business Studies, Stralsund University of Applied Sciences, Stralsund, Germany. 3. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, California. 4. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; MTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. 5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Department of Cardiology, Erlangen, Germany. 7. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 8. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) to traditional stenosis categories and the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) for predicting cardiovascular events in patients with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: The 2016 CAD-RADS has been established to standardize the reporting of CAD on coronary CT angiography (CTA). METHODS: PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial participants' CTAs were assessed by a central CT core laboratory for CACS, traditional stenosis-based categories, and modified CAD-RADS grade including high-risk coronary plaque (HRP) features. Traditional stenosis categories and CAD-RADS grade were compared for the prediction of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina over a median follow-up of 25 months. Incremental prognostic value over traditional risk factors and CACS was assessed. RESULTS: In 3,840 eligible patients (mean age: 60.4 ± 8.2 years; 49% men), 3.0% (115) experienced events. CAD-RADS (concordance statistic [C-statistic] 0.747) had significantly higher discriminatory value than traditional stenosis-based assessments (C-statistic 0.698 to 0.717; all p for comparison ≤0.001). With no plaque (CAD-RADS 0) as the baseline, the hazard ratio (HR) for an event increased from 2.43 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 5.08) for CAD-RADS 1 to 21.84 (95% CI: 8.63 to 55.26) for CAD-RADS 4b and 5. In stepwise nested models, CAD-RADS added incremental prognostic value beyond ASCVD risk score and CACS (C-statistic 0.776 vs. 0.682; p < 0.001), and added incremental value persisted in all CACS strata. CONCLUSIONS: These data from a large representative contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary CTA for stable chest pain support the prognostic value of CAD-RADS as a standard reporting system for coronary CTA.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) to traditional stenosis categories and the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) for predicting cardiovascular events in patients with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: The 2016 CAD-RADS has been established to standardize the reporting of CAD on coronary CT angiography (CTA). METHODS: PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial participants' CTAs were assessed by a central CT core laboratory for CACS, traditional stenosis-based categories, and modified CAD-RADS grade including high-risk coronary plaque (HRP) features. Traditional stenosis categories and CAD-RADS grade were compared for the prediction of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina over a median follow-up of 25 months. Incremental prognostic value over traditional risk factors and CACS was assessed. RESULTS: In 3,840 eligible patients (mean age: 60.4 ± 8.2 years; 49% men), 3.0% (115) experienced events. CAD-RADS (concordance statistic [C-statistic] 0.747) had significantly higher discriminatory value than traditional stenosis-based assessments (C-statistic 0.698 to 0.717; all p for comparison ≤0.001). With no plaque (CAD-RADS 0) as the baseline, the hazard ratio (HR) for an event increased from 2.43 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 5.08) for CAD-RADS 1 to 21.84 (95% CI: 8.63 to 55.26) for CAD-RADS 4b and 5. In stepwise nested models, CAD-RADS added incremental prognostic value beyond ASCVD risk score and CACS (C-statistic 0.776 vs. 0.682; p < 0.001), and added incremental value persisted in all CACS strata. CONCLUSIONS: These data from a large representative contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary CTA for stable chest pain support the prognostic value of CAD-RADS as a standard reporting system for coronary CTA.
Authors: Joe X Xie; Ricardo C Cury; Jonathon Leipsic; Matthew T Crim; Daniel S Berman; Heidi Gransar; Matthew J Budoff; Stephan Achenbach; Bríain Ó Hartaigh; Tracy Q Callister; Hugo Marques; Ronen Rubinshtein; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Daniele Andreini; Gianluca Pontone; Filippo Cademartiri; Erica Maffei; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Gilbert Raff; Martin Hadamitzky; Joerg Hausleiter; Gudrun Feuchtner; Allison Dunning; Augustin DeLago; Yong-Jin Kim; Philipp A Kaufmann; Todd C Villines; Benjamin J W Chow; Niree Hindoyan; Millie Gomez; Fay Y Lin; Erica Jones; James K Min; Leslee J Shaw Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-01
Authors: Nitesh Nerlekar; Francis J Ha; Caitlin Cheshire; Hashrul Rashid; James D Cameron; Dennis T Wong; Sujith Seneviratne; Adam J Brown Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Stephan D Fihn; Julius M Gardin; Jonathan Abrams; Kathleen Berra; James C Blankenship; Apostolos P Dallas; Pamela S Douglas; Joanne M Foody; Thomas C Gerber; Alan L Hinderliter; Spencer B King; Paul D Kligfield; Harlan M Krumholz; Raymond Y K Kwong; Michael J Lim; Jane A Linderbaum; Michael J Mack; Mark A Munger; Richard L Prager; Joseph F Sabik; Leslee J Shaw; Joanna D Sikkema; Craig R Smith; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Sankey V Williams Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Stefan B Puchner; Ting Liu; Thomas Mayrhofer; Quynh A Truong; Hang Lee; Jerome L Fleg; John T Nagurney; James E Udelson; Udo Hoffmann; Maros Ferencik Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael T Lu; Nandini M Meyersohn; Thomas Mayrhofer; Daniel O Bittner; Hamed Emami; Stefan B Puchner; Borek Foldyna; Martin E Mueller; Steven Hearne; Clifford Yang; Stephan Achenbach; Quynh A Truong; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Manesh R Patel; Maros Ferencik; Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Julie M Miller; Carlos E Rochitte; Marc Dewey; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Ilan Gottlieb; Narinder Paul; Melvin E Clouse; Edward P Shapiro; John Hoe; Albert C Lardo; David E Bush; Albert de Roos; Christopher Cox; Jeffery Brinker; João A C Lima Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; David Dowe; James G Jollis; Michael Gitter; John Sutherland; Edward Halamert; Markus Scherer; Raye Bellinger; Arthur Martin; Robert Benton; Augustin Delago; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Maros Ferencik; Thomas Mayrhofer; Michael T Lu; Daniel O Bittner; Hamed Emami; Stefan B Puchner; Nandini M Meyersohn; Alexander V Ivanov; Elizabeth C Adami; Deepak Voora; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; James L Januzzi; Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-05-11
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: T P W van den Boogert; B E P M Claessen; S M Boekholdt; T Leiner; R Vliegenthart; S F Schuiling; J R Timmer; S C A M Bekkers; M Voskuil; H J Siebelink; W van Es; H J Lamb; M Prokop; P Damman; J Stoker; H C Willems; J P Henriques; R N Planken Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2021-12-18