• Int. J. Cardiol. · Nov 2016

    Multicenter Study Comparative Study

    Pre-test probability of obstructive coronary stenosis in patients undergoing coronary CT angiography: Comparative performance of the modified diamond-Forrester algorithm versus methods incorporating cardiovascular risk factors.

    • António Miguel Ferreira, Hugo Marques, António Tralhão, Miguel Borges Santos, Ana Rita Santos, Gonçalo Cardoso, Hélder Dores, Maria Salomé Carvalho, Sérgio Madeira, Francisco Pereira Machado, Nuno Cardim, and Pedro de Araújo Gonçalves.
    • Cardiovascular Imaging Unit, Hospital da Luz, Avenida Lusíada 100, Lisbon, Portugal; Cardiology Department, Carnaxide, Portugal. Electronic address: antonio.ferreira@hospitaldaluz.pt.
    • Int. J. Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1; 222: 346-351.

    BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend the use of the Modified Diamond-Forrester (MDF) method to assess the pre-test likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to compare the performance of the MDF method with two contemporary algorithms derived from multicenter trials that additionally incorporate cardiovascular risk factors: the calculator-based 'CAD Consortium 2' method, and the integer-based CONFIRM score.MethodsWe assessed 1069 consecutive patients without known CAD undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for stable chest pain. Obstructive CAD was defined as the presence of coronary stenosis ≥50% on 64-slice dual-source CT. The three methods were assessed for calibration, discrimination, net reclassification, and changes in proposed downstream testing based upon calculated pre-test likelihoods.ResultsThe observed prevalence of obstructive CAD was 13.8% (n=147). Overestimations of the likelihood of obstructive CAD were 140.1%, 9.8%, and 18.8%, respectively, for the MDF, CAD Consortium 2 and CONFIRM methods. The CAD Consortium 2 showed greater discriminative power than the MDF method, with a C-statistic of 0.73 vs. 0.70 (p<0.001), while the CONFIRM score did not (C-statistic 0.71, p=0.492). Reclassification of pre-test likelihood using the 'CAD Consortium 2' or CONFIRM scores resulted in a net reclassification improvement of 0.19 and 0.18, respectively, which would change the diagnostic strategy in approximately half of the patients.ConclusionsNewer risk factor-encompassing models allow for a more precise estimation of pre-test probabilities of obstructive CAD than the guideline-recommended MDF method. Adoption of these scores may improve disease prediction and change the diagnostic pathway in a significant proportion of patients.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…