A P Morise1, W J Haddad, D Beckner. 1. Department of Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown 26506, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Guidelines for the management of patients with suspected coronary disease have emphasized stratification into groups with low, intermediate, and high probability of significant coronary disease. Previously derived clinical prediction rules have been difficult to apply in clinical settings. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a clinical score that facilitates this stratification process. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively acquired data from 915 patients with suspected coronary disease and normal resting electrocardiograms who presented for exercise testing at a university hospital. All patients subsequently underwent coronary angiography. Analysis included logistic regression with significant coronary disease (> or = 1 vessel with a > or = 50% lesion) presence as the dependent variable and clinical variables as independent variables. From this analysis, a coronary disease score was developed to estimate prevalence of coronary disease from clinical variables. Validation of this score was performed in a separate prospectively acquired cohort of 348 patients. RESULTS: For the entire validation group, the prevalence of significant coronary disease was 16% (10/63) in the low probability group, 44% (86/195) in the intermediate probability group, and 69% (62/90) in the high probability group. Both men and women were stratified equally well into the 3 probability groups. CONCLUSION: The clinical score is an easily memorized and accurate method for categorizing patients with suspected but not proven coronary disease and normal resting electrocardiograms into clinically meaningful probability groups upon which decisions concerning appropriate diagnostic test selection could potentially be based.
PURPOSE: Guidelines for the management of patients with suspected coronary disease have emphasized stratification into groups with low, intermediate, and high probability of significant coronary disease. Previously derived clinical prediction rules have been difficult to apply in clinical settings. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a clinical score that facilitates this stratification process. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively acquired data from 915 patients with suspected coronary disease and normal resting electrocardiograms who presented for exercise testing at a university hospital. All patients subsequently underwent coronary angiography. Analysis included logistic regression with significant coronary disease (> or = 1 vessel with a > or = 50% lesion) presence as the dependent variable and clinical variables as independent variables. From this analysis, a coronary disease score was developed to estimate prevalence of coronary disease from clinical variables. Validation of this score was performed in a separate prospectively acquired cohort of 348 patients. RESULTS: For the entire validation group, the prevalence of significant coronary disease was 16% (10/63) in the low probability group, 44% (86/195) in the intermediate probability group, and 69% (62/90) in the high probability group. Both men and women were stratified equally well into the 3 probability groups. CONCLUSION: The clinical score is an easily memorized and accurate method for categorizing patients with suspected but not proven coronary disease and normal resting electrocardiograms into clinically meaningful probability groups upon which decisions concerning appropriate diagnostic test selection could potentially be based.
Authors: E Maffei; S Seitun; C Martini; A Aldrovandi; T Arcadi; A Clemente; G Messalli; R Malagò; A Weustink; N Mollet; K Nieman; D Ardissino; P de Feyter; G Krestin; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; S Seitun; C Martini; A Aldrovandi; G Cervellin; C Tedeschi; A Guaricci; G Messalli; O Catalano; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ilan Gottlieb; Julie M Miller; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Marc Dewey; Melvin E Clouse; Leonardo Sara; Hiroyuki Niinuma; David E Bush; Narinder Paul; Andrea L Vavere; John Texter; Jeffery Brinker; João A C Lima; Carlos E Rochitte Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Daniel W Mudrick; Patricia A Cowper; Bimal R Shah; Manesh R Patel; Neil C Jensen; Eric D Peterson; Pamela S Douglas Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Edward Hulten; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Brian Ghoshhajra; Daniel O'Leary; Mitalee P Christman; Michael J Blaha; Quynh Truong; Kyle Nelson; Philip Montana; Michael Steigner; Frank Rybicki; Jon Hainer; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann; Marcelo F Di Carli; Khurram Nasir; Suhny Abbara; Ron Blankstein Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Viviany R Taqueti; Brendan M Everett; Venkatesh L Murthy; Mariya Gaber; Courtney R Foster; Jon Hainer; Ron Blankstein; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Tessa S S Genders; Francesca Pugliese; Nico R Mollet; W Bob Meijboom; Annick C Weustink; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Pim J de Feyter; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Baris Gencer; Paul Vaucher; Lilli Herzig; François Verdon; Christiane Ruffieux; Stefan Bösner; Bernard Burnand; Thomas Bischoff; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff; Bernard Favrat Journal: BMC Med Date: 2010-01-21 Impact factor: 8.775