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: The Partners Registry. Issue 3 (19th July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bittencourt, Marcio Sommer; Hulten, Edward; Polonsky, Tamar S.; Hoffman, Udo; Nasir, Khurram; Abbara, Suhny; Di Carli, Marcelo; Blankstein, Ron
• Is Part Of: Circulation. Volume 134:Issue 3(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-07-19
• Subjects: chest pain -- coronary artery disease -- risk assessment -- prognosis; Blood -- Circulation -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Blood Circulation; Cardiovascular System; Vascular Diseases; 616.1
• DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023396
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0009-7322

Abstract

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. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.