Why the study?
The 2019 ESC guidelines recommend upgrading pre-test probability of CAD based on clinical risk factors, but provide no estimates of how these affect pre-test probability.
Does a clinical prediction model including cardiovascular risk factors improve the prediction of obstructive CAD compared to the ESC 2019 PTP model in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome?
Does a clinical prediction model including cardiovascular risk factors improve the prediction of obstructive CAD compared to the ESC 2019 PTP model in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome?
A clinical prediction model incorporating cardiovascular risk factors can rule out significantly more patients from diagnostic testing than the ESC 2019 PTP model, though at the cost of missing more cases of obstructive CAD.
ESC 2019 PTP may overestimate CAD prevalence; challenges guideline estimates and leaves open need for updated models.
AIMS: Assessment of pre-test probability (PTP) is an important gatekeeper when selecting patients for diagnostic testing for coronary artery disease (CAD). The 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend upgrading PTP based on clinical risk factors but provide no estimates of how these affect PTP. We aimed to validate two published PTP models in a contemporary low-CAD-prevalence cohort and compare with the ESC 2019 PTP. METHODS AND RESULTS: Previously published basic and clinical prediction models and the ESC 2019 PTP were validated in 42 328 patients (54% women) ≥30 years old without previous CAD referred for cardiac computed tomography angiography in a region of Denmark from 2008 to 2017. Obstructive CAD prevalence was 8.8%. The ESC 2019 PTP and basic model included angina symptoms, sex, and age, while the clinical model added diabetes mellitus family history of CAD, and dyslipidaemia. Discrimination was good for all three models [area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.75-0.77), 0.74 (0.73-0.75), and 0.76 (0.75-0.76), respectively]. Using the clinically relevant low predicted probability ≤5% of CAD cut-off, the clinical and basic models were well calibrated, whereas the ESC 2019 PTP overestimated CAD prevalence. At a cut-off of ≤5%, the clinical model ruled out 36.2% more patients than the ESC 2019 PTP, n = 23 592 (55.7%) vs. n = 8 245 (19.5%), while missing 824 (22.2%) vs. 132 (3.6%) cases of obstructive CAD. CONCLUSION: A prediction model for CAD including cardiovascular risk factors was successfully validated. Implementation of this model would reduce the need for diagnostic testing and serve as gatekeeper if accepting a watchful waiting strategy for one-fifth of the patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bjerking et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: