Zhen Sinead Wang1,2, Jonathan Yap3, Yi Ling Eileen Koh4, Shaw Yang Chia5, N Nivedita6, Teck Wee Andrew Ang4,6, Soo Chye Paul Goh4,6, Cia Sin Lee4,6, Lee Lim Joanna Tan4, Chai Wah Ooi7, Matthew Seow6, Khung Keong Yeo6,5, Siang Jin Terrance Chua6,5, Ngiap Chuan Tan4,6. 1. SingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. sinead.wang.zhen@singhealth.com.sg. 2. Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. sinead.wang.zhen@singhealth.com.sg. 3. National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. Jonathan.yap.j.l@singhealth.com.sg. 4. SingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. 5. National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. 6. Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Republic of Singapore. 7. National Healthcare Group Polyclinics - Geylang Branch, Singapore, Republic of Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) risk prediction tools are useful decision supports. Their clinical impact has not been evaluated amongst Asians in primary care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate a diagnostic prediction model for CAD in Southeast Asians by comparing it against three existing tools. DESIGN: We prospectively recruited patients presenting to primary care for chest pain between July 2013 and December 2016. CAD was diagnosed at tertiary institution and adjudicated. A logistic regression model was built, with validation by resampling. We validated the Duke Clinical Score (DCS), CAD Consortium Score (CCS), and Marburg Heart Score (MHS). MAIN MEASURES: Discrimination and calibration quantify model performance, while net reclassification improvement and net benefit provide clinical insights. KEY RESULTS: CAD prevalence was 9.5% (158 of 1658 patients). Our model included age, gender, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, smoking, chest pain type, neck radiation, Q waves, and ST-T changes. The C-statistic was 0.808 (95% CI 0.776-0.840) and 0.815 (95% CI 0.782-0.847), for model without and with ECG respectively. C-statistics for DCS, CCS-basic, CCS-clinical, and MHS were 0.795 (95% CI 0.759-0.831), 0.756 (95% CI 0.717-0.794), 0.787 (95% CI 0.752-0.823), and 0.661 (95% CI 0.621-0.701). Our model (with ECG) correctly reclassified 100% of patients when compared with DCS and CCS-clinical respectively. At 5% threshold probability, the net benefit for our model (with ECG) was 0.063. The net benefit for DCS, CCS-basic, and CCS-clinical was 0.056, 0.060, and 0.065. CONCLUSIONS: PRECISE (Predictive Risk scorE for CAD In Southeast Asians with chEst pain) performs well and demonstrates utility as a clinical decision support for diagnosing CAD among Southeast Asians.
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) risk prediction tools are useful decision supports. Their clinical impact has not been evaluated amongst Asians in primary care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate a diagnostic prediction model for CAD in Southeast Asians by comparing it against three existing tools. DESIGN: We prospectively recruited patients presenting to primary care for chest pain between July 2013 and December 2016. CAD was diagnosed at tertiary institution and adjudicated. A logistic regression model was built, with validation by resampling. We validated the Duke Clinical Score (DCS), CAD Consortium Score (CCS), and Marburg Heart Score (MHS). MAIN MEASURES: Discrimination and calibration quantify model performance, while net reclassification improvement and net benefit provide clinical insights. KEY RESULTS: CAD prevalence was 9.5% (158 of 1658 patients). Our model included age, gender, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, smoking, chest pain type, neck radiation, Q waves, and ST-T changes. The C-statistic was 0.808 (95% CI 0.776-0.840) and 0.815 (95% CI 0.782-0.847), for model without and with ECG respectively. C-statistics for DCS, CCS-basic, CCS-clinical, and MHS were 0.795 (95% CI 0.759-0.831), 0.756 (95% CI 0.717-0.794), 0.787 (95% CI 0.752-0.823), and 0.661 (95% CI 0.621-0.701). Our model (with ECG) correctly reclassified 100% of patients when compared with DCS and CCS-clinical respectively. At 5% threshold probability, the net benefit for our model (with ECG) was 0.063. The net benefit for DCS, CCS-basic, and CCS-clinical was 0.056, 0.060, and 0.065. CONCLUSIONS: PRECISE (Predictive Risk scorE for CAD In Southeast Asians with chEst pain) performs well and demonstrates utility as a clinical decision support for diagnosing CAD among Southeast Asians.
Authors: Jacob Reeh; Christina Bachmann Therming; Merete Heitmann; Søren Højberg; Charlotte Sørum; Jan Bech; Dorte Husum; Helena Dominguez; Thomas Sehestedt; Thomas Hermann; Kim Wadt Hansen; Lene Simonsen; Søren Galatius; Eva Prescott Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 29.983
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; Jeffrey L Anderson Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Borek Foldyna; James E Udelson; Júlia Karády; Dahlia Banerji; Michael T Lu; Thomas Mayrhofer; Daniel O Bittner; Nandini M Meyersohn; Hamed Emami; Tessa S S Genders; Christopher B Fordyce; Maros Ferencik; Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Victor Y Cheng; Daniel S Berman; Alan Rozanski; Allison M Dunning; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Augustin Delago; Millie Gomez; Martin Hadamitzky; Jörg Hausleiter; Ronald P Karlsberg; Philipp Kaufmann; Fay Y Lin; Erica Maffei; Gilbert L Raff; Todd C Villines; Leslee J Shaw; James K Min Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 29.690