Why the study?
The study was designed to evaluate a new risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood (RF-CL) model for diagnosing chronic coronary syndrome, taking gender differences into account.
Does the risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood (RF-CL) model reveal gender differences in the pre-test probability of chronic coronary syndrome?
Does the risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood (RF-CL) model reveal gender differences in the pre-test probability of chronic coronary syndrome?
The RF-CL model highlights significant gender differences in the clinical likelihood of obstructive CAD, suggesting that traditional algorithms may lead to an excessive number of stress tests, particularly in women.
May warrant gender-specific RF-CL thresholds to curb over-testing in women; leaves open prospective validation beyond this small cohort.
Objective. To evaluate a new model of risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood (RF-CL) in diagnosis of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) taking into account gender differences. Material and methods. The registry study included 69 men and 62 women (age 66.8±10.2 years) who were examined for suspected coronary artery disease. All patients with various risk factors and clinical manifestations of CCS underwent diagnostic searching in accordance with the Russian guidelines “Stable coronary artery disease” (2024), as well as analysis of clinical likelihood of coronary artery disease using the RF-CL model was performed. Results. When comparing clinical likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease according to RF-CL data, men showed higher values compared to women (21.6±12.6% and 8.2±5.9, respectively, p<0.34). Significant differences in RF-CL were obtained for both groups: moderate (RF-CL>15—50%) for men and women — 68% and 11% (p<0.001), low (RF-CL>5—15%) — 27% and 58% (p<0.001), very low (RF-CL≤5%) — 4% and 31%, respectively (p<0.001). The prevalence of typical (28% vs. 20%, p=0.39) and atypical angina (21% vs. 25%, respectively, p=0.67), as well as non-cardiac chest pain (31% vs. 23%, p=0.4) did not differ between groups. However, dyspnea was more common among women (39% vs. 66%, p=0.005). Only 17 (13%) ones who underwent stress test had indications for invasive coronary angiography. At the same time, 10 (8%) patients had stenoses ≥70%. Conclusion. A new RF-CL model on a small cohort demonstrates the need for its use on a larger sample, as it emphasizes excessive number of stress tests (especially for women) in case of adherence of attending physicians to traditional Diamond–Forrester pre-test probability algorithm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nurutdinov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: