Why the study?
Does a novel prediction model combining clinical and physiological parameters improve diagnostic sensitivity for CAD compared to CAC score alone in patients with low CAC scores?
Does a novel prediction model combining clinical and physiological parameters improve diagnostic sensitivity for CAD compared to CAC score alone in patients with low CAC scores?
Combining clinical and physiological parameters with CAC scores significantly improves the sensitivity of detecting CAD in patients with low CAC scores.
May enhance CAD detection in low-CAC patients; leaves open need for prospective validation before clinical adoption.
PURPOSE: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) scores are widely used to determine risk for Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). A CAC score does not have the diagnostic accuracy needed for CAD. This work uses a novel efficient approach to predict CAD in patients with low CAC scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group comprised 86 subjects who underwent a screening health examination, including laboratory testing, CAC scanning, and cardiac angiography by 64-slice multidetector computed tomographic angiography. Eleven physiological variables and three personal parameters were investigated in proposed model. Logistic regression was applied to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of when using individual variables and CAC score. Meta-analysis combined physiological and personal parameters by logistic regression. RESULTS: The diagnostic sensitivity of the CAC score was 14.3% when the CAC score was ≤30. Sensitivity increased to 57.13% using the proposed model. The statistically significant variables, based on beta values and P values, were family history, LDL-c, blood pressure, HDL-c, age, triglyceride, and cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: The CAC score has low negative predictive value for CAD. This work applied a novel prediction method that uses patient information, including physiological and society parameters. The proposed method increases the accuracy of CAC score for predicting CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: