Michael G Nanna1, Eric D Peterson2, Karen Chiswell3, Robert A Overton3, Adam J Nelson3, David F Kong4, Ann Marie Navar2. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Duke University Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: michael.nanna@duke.edu. 2. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Duke University Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Identifying patient subgroups with cardiovascular disease (CVD) at highest risk for recurrent events remains challenging. Angiographic features may provide incremental value in risk prediction beyond clinical characteristics. METHODS: We included all cardiac catheterization patients from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease with significant coronary artery disease (CAD; 07/01/2007-12/31/2012) and an outpatient follow-up visit with a primary care physician or cardiologist in the same health system within 3 months post-catheterization. Follow-up occurred for 3 years for the primary major adverse cardiovascular event endpoint (time to all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke). A multivariable model to predict recurrent events was developed based on clinical variables only, then adding angiographic variables from the catheterization. Next, we compared discrimination of clinical vs. clinical plus angiographic risk prediction models. RESULTS: Among 3366 patients with angiographically-defined CAD, 633 (19.2%) experienced cardiovascular events (death, MI, or stroke) within 3 years. A multivariable model including 18 baseline clinical factors and initial revascularization had modest ability to predict future atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events (c-statistic = 0.716). Among angiographic predictors, number of diseased vessels, left main stenosis, left anterior descending stenosis, and the Duke CAD Index had the highest value for secondary risk prediction; however, the clinical plus angiographic model only slightly improved discrimination (c-statistic = 0.724; delta 0.008). The net benefit for angiographic features was also small, with a relative integrated discrimination improvement of 0.05 (95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of coronary angiographic features added little incremental value in secondary risk prediction beyond clinical characteristics.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Identifying patient subgroups with cardiovascular disease (CVD) at highest risk for recurrent events remains challenging. Angiographic features may provide incremental value in risk prediction beyond clinical characteristics. METHODS: We included all cardiac catheterization patients from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease with significant coronary artery disease (CAD; 07/01/2007-12/31/2012) and an outpatient follow-up visit with a primary care physician or cardiologist in the same health system within 3 months post-catheterization. Follow-up occurred for 3 years for the primary major adverse cardiovascular event endpoint (time to all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke). A multivariable model to predict recurrent events was developed based on clinical variables only, then adding angiographic variables from the catheterization. Next, we compared discrimination of clinical vs. clinical plus angiographic risk prediction models. RESULTS: Among 3366 patients with angiographically-defined CAD, 633 (19.2%) experienced cardiovascular events (death, MI, or stroke) within 3 years. A multivariable model including 18 baseline clinical factors and initial revascularization had modest ability to predict future atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events (c-statistic = 0.716). Among angiographic predictors, number of diseased vessels, left main stenosis, left anterior descending stenosis, and the Duke CAD Index had the highest value for secondary risk prediction; however, the clinical plus angiographic model only slightly improved discrimination (c-statistic = 0.724; delta 0.008). The net benefit for angiographic features was also small, with a relative integrated discrimination improvement of 0.05 (95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of coronary angiographic features added little incremental value in secondary risk prediction beyond clinical characteristics.
Authors: Sidney C Smith; Emelia J Benjamin; Robert O Bonow; Lynne T Braun; Mark A Creager; Barry A Franklin; Raymond J Gibbons; Scott M Grundy; Loren F Hiratzka; Daniel W Jones; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Margo Minissian; Lori Mosca; Eric D Peterson; Ralph L Sacco; John Spertus; James H Stein; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Paul Muntner; Alvaro Alonso; Marcio S Bittencourt; Clifton W Callaway; April P Carson; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Sandeep R Das; Francesca N Delling; Luc Djousse; Mitchell S V Elkind; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Sadiya S Khan; Brett M Kissela; Kristen L Knutson; Tak W Kwan; Daniel T Lackland; Tené T Lewis; Judith H Lichtman; Chris T Longenecker; Matthew Shane Loop; Pamela L Lutsey; Seth S Martin; Kunihiro Matsushita; Andrew E Moran; Michael E Mussolino; Martin O'Flaherty; Ambarish Pandey; Amanda M Perak; Wayne D Rosamond; Gregory A Roth; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Emily B Schroeder; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; Andrew Stokes; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Mintu P Turakhia; Lisa B VanWagner; John T Wilkins; Sally S Wong; Salim S Virani Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Brent A Williams; Kevin M Chagin; Lori D Bash; William E Boden; Sue Duval; F Gerry R Fowkes; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Mehul D Patel; Ralph B D'Agostino; Eric D Peterson; Michael W Kattan; Deepak L Bhatt; Marc P Bonaca Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Kenji Goto; Alexandra J Lansky; Martin Fahy; Ecatarina Cristea; Frederick Feit; E Magnus Ohman; Harvey D White; Karen P Alexander; Michel E Bertrand; Walter Desmet; Martial Hamon; Roxana Mehran; Gregg W Stone Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Nina P Paynter; Daniel I Chasman; Guillaume Paré; Julie E Buring; Nancy R Cook; Joseph P Miletich; Paul M Ridker Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-02-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Samuli Ripatti; Emmi Tikkanen; Marju Orho-Melander; Aki S Havulinna; Kaisa Silander; Amitabh Sharma; Candace Guiducci; Markus Perola; Antti Jula; Juha Sinisalo; Marja-Liisa Lokki; Markku S Nieminen; Olle Melander; Veikko Salomaa; Leena Peltonen; Sekar Kathiresan Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Johannes A N Dorresteijn; Frank L J Visseren; Annemarie M J Wassink; Martijn J A Gondrie; Ewout W Steyerberg; Paul M Ridker; Nancy R Cook; Yolanda van der Graaf Journal: Heart Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Gregory G Schwartz; P Gabriel Steg; Michael Szarek; Deepak L Bhatt; Vera A Bittner; Rafael Diaz; Jay M Edelberg; Shaun G Goodman; Corinne Hanotin; Robert A Harrington; J Wouter Jukema; Guillaume Lecorps; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Angèle Moryusef; Robert Pordy; Kirby Quintero; Matthew T Roe; William J Sasiela; Jean-François Tamby; Pierluigi Tricoci; Harvey D White; Andreas M Zeiher Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J L Mega; N O Stitziel; S Kathiresan; M S Sabatine; J G Smith; D I Chasman; M Caulfield; J J Devlin; F Nordio; C Hyde; C P Cannon; F Sacks; N Poulter; P Sever; P M Ridker; E Braunwald; O Melander Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lotte Kaasenbrood; Deepak L Bhatt; Jannick A N Dorresteijn; Peter W F Wilson; Ralph B D'Agostino; Joseph M Massaro; Yolanda van der Graaf; Maarten J M Cramer; L Jaap Kappelle; Gert J de Borst; Ph Gabriel Steg; Frank L J Visseren Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.501