Dataset Information

The External Validity of Prediction Models for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: Insights From the PROMISE Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study sought to externally validate prediction models for the presence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).

Background

A better assessment of the probability of CAD may improve the identification of patients who benefit from noninvasive testing.

Methods

Stable chest pain patients from the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial with computed tomography angiography (CTA) or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were included. The authors assumed that patients with CTA showing 0% stenosis and a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score of 0 were free of obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis) on ICA, and they multiply imputed missing ICA results based on clinical variables and CTA results. Predicted CAD probabilities were calculated using published coefficients for 3 models: basic model (age, sex, chest pain type), clinical model (basic model + diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking), and clinical + CAC score model. The authors assessed discrimination and calibration, and compared published effects with observed predictor effects.

Results

In 3,468 patients (1,805 women; mean 60 years of age; 779 [23%] with obstructive CAD on CTA), the models demonstrated moderate-good discrimination, with C-statistics of 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67 to 0.72), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.74), and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.88) for the basic, clinical, and clinical + CAC score models, respectively. Calibration was satisfactory although typical chest pain and diabetes were less predictive and CAC score was more predictive than was suggested by the models. Among the 31% of patients for whom the clinical model predicted a low (≤10%) probability of CAD, actual prevalence was 7%; among the 48% for whom the clinical + CAC score model predicted a low probability the observed prevalence was 2%. In 2 sensitivity analyses excluding imputed data, similar results were obtained using CTA as the outcome, whereas in those who underwent ICA the models significantly underestimated CAD probability.

Conclusions

Existing clinical prediction models can identify patients with a low probability of obstructive CAD. Obstructive CAD on ICA was imputed for 61% of patients; hence, further validation is necessary.

SUBMITTER: Genders TSS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6815347 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The External Validity of Prediction Models for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: Insights From the PROMISE Trial.

Genders Tessa S S TSS Coles Adrian A Hoffmann Udo U Patel Manesh R MR Mark Daniel B DB Lee Kerry L KL Steyerberg Ewout W EW Hunink M G Myriam MGM Douglas Pamela S PS

JACC. Cardiovascular imaging 20170614 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study sought to externally validate prediction models for the presence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).<h4>Background</h4>A better assessment of the probability of CAD may improve the identification of patients who benefit from noninvasive testing.<h4>Methods</h4>Stable chest pain patients from the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial with computed tomography angiography (CTA) or invasive coronary angiography (ICA ...[more]

PMID: 28624401

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesCoronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has higher diagnostic accuracy than coronary artery calcium (CAC) score for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with stable chest pain, while the added diagnostic value of combining CCTA with CAC is unknown. We investigated whether combining coronary CCTA with CAC score can improve the diagnosis of obstructive CAD compared with CCTA alone.MethodsA total of 2315 patients (858 women, 37%) aged 61.1 ± 10.2 from 29 original studies were included to build two CAD prediction models based on either CCTA alone or CCTA combined with the CAC score. CAD was defined as at least 50% coronary diameter stenosis on invasive coronary angiography. Models were built by using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept set for the original study. The two CAD prediction models were compared by the likelihood ratio test, while their diagnostic performance was compared using the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC). Net benefit (benefit of true positive versus harm of false positive) was assessed by decision curve analysis.ResultsCAD prevalence was 43.5% (1007/2315). Combining CCTA with CAC improved CAD diagnosis compared with CCTA alone (AUC: 87% [95% CI: 86 to 89%] vs. 80% [95% CI: 78 to 82%]; p < 0.001), likelihood ratio test 236.3, df: 1, p < 0.001, showing a higher net benefit across almost all threshold probabilities.ConclusionAdding the CAC score to CCTA findings in patients with stable chest pain improves the diagnostic performance in detecting CAD and the net benefit compared with CCTA alone.Clinical relevance statementCAC scoring CT performed before coronary CTA and included in the diagnostic model can improve obstructive CAD diagnosis, especially when CCTA is non-diagnostic.Key points• The combination of coronary artery calcium with coronary computed tomography angiography showed significantly higher AUC (87%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 86 to 89%) for diagnosis of coronary artery disease compared to coronary computed tomography angiography alone (80%, 95% CI: 78 to 82%, p < 0.001). • Diagnostic improvement was mostly seen in patients with non-diagnostic C. • The improvement in diagnostic performance and the net benefit was consistent across age groups, chest pain types, and genders.

Project description:BackgroundCoronary artery calcium (CAC) is an established predictor of future major adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in asymptomatic individuals. However, limited data exist as to how CAC compares with functional testing (FT) in estimating prognosis in symptomatic patients.MethodsIn the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain), patients with stable chest pain (or dyspnea) and intermediate pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease were randomized to FT (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress, or stress echocardiography) or anatomic testing. We evaluated those who underwent CAC testing as part of the anatomic evaluation (n=4209) and compared that with results of FT (n=4602). We stratified CAC and FT results as normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal (for CAC: 0, 1-99 Agatston score [AS], 100-400 AS, and >400 AS, respectively; for FT: normal, mild=late positive treadmill, moderate=early positive treadmill or single-vessel ischemia, and severe=large ischemic region abnormality). The primary end point was all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalization over a median follow-up of 26.1 months. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and C statistics to determine predictive and discriminatory values.ResultsOverall, the distribution of normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal test results was significantly different between FT and CAC (FT: normal, n=3588 [78.0%]; mild, n=432 [9.4%]; moderate, n=217 [4.7%]; severe, n=365 [7.9%]; CAC: normal, n=1457 [34.6%]; mild, n=1340 [31.8%]; moderate, n=772 [18.3%]; severe, n=640 [15.2%]; P<0.0001). Moderate and severe abnormalities in both arms robustly predicted events (moderate: CAC: HR, 3.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-5.44; and FT: HR, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.83; severe: CAC: HR, 3.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-6.36; and FT: HR, 3.88; 95% confidence interval, 2.58-5.85). In the CAC arm, the majority of events (n=112 of 133, 84%) occurred in patients with any positive CAC test (score >0), whereas fewer than half of events occurred in patients with mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal FT (n=57 of 132, 43%; P<0.001). In contrast, any abnormality on FT was significantly more specific for predicting events (78.6% for FT versus 35.2% for CAC; P<0.001). Overall discriminatory ability in predicting the primary end point of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unstable angina hospitalization was similar and fair for both CAC and FT (C statistic, 0.67 versus 0.64). Coronary computed tomographic angiography provided significantly better prognostic information compared with FT and CAC testing (C index, 0.72).ConclusionsAmong stable outpatients presenting with suspected coronary artery disease, most patients experiencing clinical events have measurable CAC at baseline, and fewer than half have any abnormalities on FT. However, an abnormal FT was more specific for cardiovascular events, leading to overall similarly modest discriminatory abilities of both tests.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) should be performed in patients with any clinical probability of coronary artery disease (CAD), and whether the diagnostic performance differs between subgroups of patients.DesignProspectively designed meta-analysis of individual patient data from prospective diagnostic accuracy studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and Web of Science for published studies. Unpublished studies were identified via direct contact with participating investigators.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesProspective diagnostic accuracy studies that compared coronary CTA with coronary angiography as the reference standard, using at least a 50% diameter reduction as a cutoff value for obstructive CAD. All patients needed to have a clinical indication for coronary angiography due to suspected CAD, and both tests had to be performed in all patients. Results had to be provided using 2×2 or 3×2 cross tabulations for the comparison of CTA with coronary angiography. Primary outcomes were the positive and negative predictive values of CTA as a function of clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD, analysed by a generalised linear mixed model; calculations were performed including and excluding non-diagnostic CTA results. The no-treat/treat threshold model was used to determine the range of appropriate pretest probabilities for CTA. The threshold model was based on obtained post-test probabilities of less than 15% in case of negative CTA and above 50% in case of positive CTA. Sex, angina pectoris type, age, and number of computed tomography detector rows were used as clinical variables to analyse the diagnostic performance in relevant subgroups.ResultsIndividual patient data from 5332 patients from 65 prospective diagnostic accuracy studies were retrieved. For a pretest probability range of 7-67%, the treat threshold of more than 50% and the no-treat threshold of less than 15% post-test probability were obtained using CTA. At a pretest probability of 7%, the positive predictive value of CTA was 50.9% (95% confidence interval 43.3% to 57.7%) and the negative predictive value of CTA was 97.8% (96.4% to 98.7%); corresponding values at a pretest probability of 67% were 82.7% (78.3% to 86.2%) and 85.0% (80.2% to 88.9%), respectively. The overall sensitivity of CTA was 95.2% (92.6% to 96.9%) and the specificity was 79.2% (74.9% to 82.9%). CTA using more than 64 detector rows was associated with a higher empirical sensitivity than CTA using up to 64 rows (93.4% v 86.5%, P=0.002) and specificity (84.4% v 72.6%, P<0.001). The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for CTA was 0.897 (0.889 to 0.906), and the diagnostic performance of CTA was slightly lower in women than in with men (area under the curve 0.874 (0.858 to 0.890) v 0.907 (0.897 to 0.916), P<0.001). The diagnostic performance of CTA was slightly lower in patients older than 75 (0.864 (0.834 to 0.894), P=0.018 v all other age groups) and was not significantly influenced by angina pectoris type (typical angina 0.895 (0.873 to 0.917), atypical angina 0.898 (0.884 to 0.913), non-anginal chest pain 0.884 (0.870 to 0.899), other chest discomfort 0.915 (0.897 to 0.934)).ConclusionsIn a no-treat/treat threshold model, the diagnosis of obstructive CAD using coronary CTA in patients with stable chest pain was most accurate when the clinical pretest probability was between 7% and 67%. Performance of CTA was not influenced by the angina pectoris type and was slightly higher in men and lower in older patients.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42012002780.

Dataset Information

The External Validity of Prediction Models for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: Insights From the PROMISE Trial.

Objectives

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The External Validity of Prediction Models for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: Insights From the PROMISE Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets