European Society of Cardiology–Recommended Coronary Artery Disease Consortium Pretest Probability Scores More Accurately Predict Obstructive Coronary Disease and Cardiovascular Events Than the Diamond and Forrester Score

Author:

Bittencourt Marcio Sommer1,Hulten Edward1,Polonsky Tamar S.1,Hoffman Udo1,Nasir Khurram1,Abbara Suhny1,Di Carli Marcelo1,Blankstein Ron1

Affiliation:

1. From the Center for Clinical and Epidemiological Research, University Hospital and São Paulo State Cancer Institute, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Sao Paulo, Brazil (M.S.B.); Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Departments of Medicine and Radiology; Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (M.S.B., E.H., M.D.C., R.B.); Preventive Medicine Center, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil (M.S.B.); Cardiology Service, Department of Internal Medicine,...

Abstract

Background: The most appropriate score for evaluating the pretest probability of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) is unknown. We sought to compare the Diamond-Forrester (DF) score with the 2 CAD consortium scores recently recommended by the European Society of Cardiology. Methods: We included 2274 consecutive patients (age, 56±13 years; 57% male) without prior CAD referred for coronary computed tomographic angiography. Computed tomographic angiography findings were used to determine the presence or absence of obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis). We compared the DF score with the 2 CAD consortium scores with respect to their ability to predict obstructive CAD and the potential implications of these scores on the downstream use of testing for CAD, as recommended by current guidelines. Results: The DF score did not satisfactorily fit the data and resulted in a significant overestimation of the prevalence of obstructive CAD ( P <0.001); the CAD consortium basic score had no significant lack of fitness; and the CAD consortium clinical provided adequate goodness of fit ( P =0.39). The DF score had a lower discrimination for obstructive CAD, with an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of 0.713 versus 0.752 and 0.791 for the CAD consortium models ( P <0.001 for both). Consequently, the use of the DF score was associated with fewer individuals being categorized as requiring no additional testing (8.3%) compared with the CAD consortium models (24.6% and 30.0%; P <0.001). The proportion of individuals with a high pretest probability was 18% with the DF and only 1.1% with the CAD consortium scores ( P <0.001) Conclusions: Among contemporary patients referred for noninvasive testing, the DF risk score overestimates the risk of obstructive CAD. On the other hand, the CAD consortium scores offered improved goodness of fit and discrimination; thus, their use could decrease the need for noninvasive or invasive testing while increasing the yield of such tests.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Physiology (medical),Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3