Clinical Risk Scores to Minimize Low Yield Coronary Artery Disease Testing

HomeCirculation: Cardiovascular ImagingVol. 12, No. 2Clinical Risk Scores to Minimize Low Yield Coronary Artery Disease Testing Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBClinical Risk Scores to Minimize Low Yield Coronary Artery Disease TestingPROMISE or Reality? Ahmad Masri, MD and Venkatesh L. Murthy, MD, PhD Ahmad MasriAhmad Masri Ahmad Masri, MD, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 200 Lothrop St, Scaife Hall, S-553 Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Email: E-mail Address: [email protected] Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine and the Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh (A.M.) and Venkatesh L. MurthyVenkatesh L. Murthy Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Frankel Cardiovascular Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (V.L.M.). Originally published4 Feb 2019https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.118.008626Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2019;12:e008626This article is a commentary on the followingPredictive Model for High-Risk Coronary Artery DiseaseSee Article by Jang et alReduction in low-yield testing has been the focus of many efforts in the cardiovascular community including appropriate use criteria and education campaigns.1–4 Unfortunately, translation to the clinical practice of these efforts has been challenging and incomplete. In this context, the application of clinical risk scores for initial risk stratification and better targeting of advanced imaging methods is of tremendous interest.Use of risk prediction rules to identify patients suitable for more aggressive investigation has a long history dating at least as far back as to 1979 with Diamond and Forrester's seminal risk stratification paper using decision tree methods to classify patients based on using age, sex, and chest pain characteristics.5 Since that time, a large number of other cardiovascular risk prediction schemes for both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals using regression and more recently statistical learning methods have been published. As of 2013, 363 prediction models and 473 external validations had been published.6 Despite concerns over poor calibration in light of changing demographics and risk factor profiles, the Diamond and Forrester model remains one of the most widely used models, likely because of its simplicity.5,6 Ultimately, the declining prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in testing cohorts7 results in an inevitable decline in the positive predictive value of both clinical decision rules and advanced imaging.8Recently, the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommended coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for all patients with chest pain who have typical or atypical angina, and those with nonanginal chest pain but concerning electrocardiographic changes based mainly on analyses of the SCOT-HEART trial (Scottish Computed Tomography of the HEART) and the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain).9,10 Although the excellent negative predictive value of CCTA seen in several prospective trials may be helpful in some clinical scenarios, it is unclear whether it is cost saving.9,10 Furthermore, full implementation of such a change is extremely difficult and would result in an increase in the annual volume of CCTA in the United Kingdom from 42 340 to 350 000 (or from 66 to 545 per 100 000 population, per year).11Consequently, regardless of the preferred CAD imaging test, optimal patient selection remains critical and great potential utility exists for improved clinical tools. To that end, in this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging, Jang et al12 performed a post hoc analysis on patients who underwent CCTA in the PROMISE trial. Recognizing that among stable patients, it is critical to identify coronary anatomy which could meet indications for coronary artery bypass grafting,13 the investigators set to derive a clinical prediction model of high-risk CAD (HR-CAD) which was defined as 50% stenosis for (1) left main, (2) 3-vessel disease, or (3) 2-vessel disease including the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (HR-CAD50). A second model was derived to identify (1) >50% left main stenosis, (2) >70% stenosis in 3 vessels, or (3) >70% stenosis in 2-vessel including the proximal left anterior descending (HR-CAD70).12 Out of 4589 patients, prevalence of HR-CAD50 was 6.6%, and HR-CAD70 was 2.4%. This itself is an important finding. Nearly 19 out of 20 patients who underwent CCTA did not meet the more inclusive definition of disease for which revascularization might alter prognosis and 39 out of 40 did not meet the more stringent criteria. In many ways, the investigators set out to identify a needle in a haystack.Their final risk model for HR-CAD50 included age, gender, diabetes mellitus, family history, type of symptoms (classified as typical, atypical, and noncardiac), estimated glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, and smoking. The final risk model for HR-CAD70 was similar though smoking which was replaced by sedentary lifestyle. Ultimately all of these factors are generally already being considered by clinicians when prioritizing patients for additional testing in clinical practice and may have less predictive power in this cohort, all of whom were planned for additional testing, than in broader clinical cohorts. Further, these regression equations formalize the process and have the potential to reduce between clinicians variability. The final models were well calibrated, meaning the range of predicted risk was broadly in line with observed risk. The models' risk discrimination (ability to separate high and low-risk individuals) compared favorably to previously published models (Table 1). It is important to note that although the investigators used bias correction methods to help offset the bias towards higher performance seen whenever a risk score is fit and evaluated within the same cohort, the new model is likely to perform somewhat less well in other cohorts. Furthermore, the net differences between these new and older risk models such the Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter high-risk model14 and the pooled cohort equations are small enough that these equations may not be superior in clinical practice. Importantly, the Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter model does not include laboratory variables and may be more easily generalizable as a consequence.Table 1. A Summary of the Performance of the Different Models Presented in the Original Paper by Jang et al12ModelC-Statistic (95% CI)Bias-Corrected C-Statistic (95% CI)HR-CAD500.75 (0.72, 0.78)0.73 (0.71, 0.76)HR-CAD700.76 (0.71, 0.81)0.73 (0.68, 0.77)Comparison with other modelsPublished modelPublished model C-statisticNew model for comparisonχ2P ValuePooled cohort equation0.70HR-CAD5018.18<0.00010.71HR-CAD705.970.0145Modified diamond-forrester0.68HR-CAD5026.90<0.00010.71HR-CAD709.470.0021CONFIRM high-risk0.73HR-CAD702.150.1422CONFIRM indicates Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter; and HR-CAD, high-risk coronary artery disease.So, is there little hope for the application of risk equations to help better target advanced imaging methods? We computed sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value for cut points at each decile of the 2 risk scores from Tables 2 and 4 in the Data Supplement (Table 2). As with any model, there were trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity at different cut points. Given a strong desire not to miss high-risk CAD anatomy, we plotted the negative predictive value as compared with the fraction of patients not referred to CCTA based on various thresholds of HR-CAD50 and HR-CAD70 (Figure). It is possible to avoid testing in as much as 40% of individuals with the lowest risk-based on these risk models and still have a net negative predictive value for HR-CAD50 of 98.1% and for HR-CAD70 of 99.2%.The concept of reducing imaging by 40% is certainly attractive. However, the sensitivity of such a strategy would only by 88.4% for HR-CAD50 and 88.2% for HR-CAD70, implying nearly 1 in 8 patients with high-risk CAD would not undergo testing under such a scheme and would presumably be missed. It is not certain whether clinicians would accept such a compromise.Table 2. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value, Fraction of CCTA Avoided and Fraction of Disease Missed of Model HR-CAD50 and Model HR-CAD70 According to Different Deciles Presented Originally in Tables 2 and 4 in the Data Supplement, Respectively12DecileNumber of SubjectsObserved EventsSensitivitySpecificityPositive Predictive ValueNegative Predictive ValueFraction of CCTA Avoided (%)Fraction of HR Diseases Missed (%)Model HR-CAD50044331.00000.00000.0660−…0.0144420.98980.10610.07260.9932101.02444140.98290.21270.08110.9944201.73444150.93520.31640.08820.9857306.54444190.88400.41990.09720.98084011.65444260.81910.52240.10810.97615018.16444280.73040.62330.12050.97036027.07444410.63480.72360.13960.96567036.58444600.49490.82080.16330.95838050.59444850.29010.91340.19140.94799071.010000.00001.0000-0.9340100100.0Model HR-CAD70044431.00000.00000.0248-…0.0144450.97270.10180.02680.9932102.7244530.92730.20310.02870.9910207.3344420.90000.30510.03180.99173010.0444450.88180.40710.03640.99274011.8544570.83640.50840.04140.99195016.4644470.77270.60950.04780.99066022.77445150.70910.71040.05850.98977029.18444170.57270.80960.07090.98688042.79444460.41820.90810.10360.98409058.210000.00001.0000-0.9752100100CCTA indicates coronary computed tomography angiography; and HR-CAD, high-risk coronary artery disease.Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure. A plot of the negative predictive value as compared with the fraction of patients not referred for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) based on various thresholds of high-risk coronary artery disease 50% model (HR-CAD50) and high-risk coronary artery disease 70% model (HR-CAD70).Stepping back, the exercise of risk prediction and coronary imaging to identify high-risk anatomy has 2 main goals. First, in educating patients and caregivers as to prognosis for adverse CAD outcomes. Second, to separate patients whose prognosis might be improved from revascularization from those in whom a trial of medical therapy before further testing would be more reasonable. Patients identified as higher risk by both models experienced more adverse outcomes, including more death and myocardial infarction. Although these events were adjudicated by a blinded committee, local clinicians decided on the process of care in a nonrandomized fashion, so it remains unclear the extent to which additional imaging may or may not have impacted outcomes.10 Another limitation pertains to the use of CCTA as a surrogate for obstructive CAD on invasive coronary angiography. In a recent report from the same study, 16% discordance between CCTA interpretations performed at recruiting sites and the core laboratory was noted with 41% fewer patients being reported to have significant CAD by the core laboratory (14% in core laboratory versus 23% in site reported, P<0.001).15 Importantly, the present study used site reads and results could be different with core lab reads, given the meaningfully lower prevalence of disease in the core lab interpretation.In summary, risk prediction in CAD remains challenging. Although the current study is a step in the right direction and could form the basis of strategies to reduce low-yield testing, as of yet no clinical cut point has been validated and widely accepted as a threshold beyond which clinicians should feel comfortable in not offering further testing. The search for better-performing prediction models should continue, although improvement in performance is likely to be modest without incorporation of additional powerful risk markers such as coronary artery calcium score. Equally critical, however, is to validate the safety of risk-based algorithms for patient selection in prospective studies.DisclosuresDr Masri is supported by a research training grant T32HL129964-02 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr Murthy is principal investigator and receives salary and research support from Grant R01HL136685 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Grant R01AG059729 from the National Institute on Aging. Dr Murthy also receives salary and research support from grant from Siemens Medical Imaging and Singulex and research support from INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions. He owns stock in General Electric and Cardinal Health and stock options Ionetix. He has received consulting fees from Ionetix and Jubilant Draximage.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.Ahmad Masri, MD, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 200 Lothrop St, Scaife Hall, S-553 Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Email: [email protected]eduReferences1. Doukky R, Diemer G, Medina A, Winchester DE, Murthy VL, Phillips LM, Flood K, Giering L, Hearn G, Schwartz RG, Russell R, Wolinsky D. Promoting appropriate use of cardiac imaging: no longer an academic exercise.Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166:438–440. doi: 10.7326/M16-2673CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Choosing Wisely. Stress Tests for Chest Pain: When You Need an Imaging Test—and When You Don't.2017. http://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Stress-Tests-For-Chest-Pain-ASNC.pdf. Accessed December 28, 2018.Google Scholar3. DePuey EG. Standard Myocardial Perfusion SPECT Protocols and Associated Patient Radiation Doses.2012. https://www.imagewisely.org/-/media/Image-Wisely/Files/Nuclear-Medicine/Myocardial-Perfusion-SPECT.pdf?la=en. Accessed December 28, 2018.Google Scholar4. Wolk MJ, Bailey SR, Doherty JU, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Kramer CM, Min JK, Patel MR, Rosenbaum L, Shaw LJ, Stainback RF, Allen JM; American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force. ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use criteria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63:380–406. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.009CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease.N Engl J Med. 1979; 300:1350–1358. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197906143002402CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Damen JA, Hooft L, Schuit E, Debray TP, Collins GS, Tzoulaki I, Lassale CM, Siontis GC, Chiocchia V, Roberts C, Schlüssel MM, Gerry S, Black JA, Heus P, van der Schouw YT, Peelen LM, Moons KG. Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review.BMJ. 2016; 353:i2416. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2416CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Rozanski A, Gransar H, Hayes SW, Min J, Friedman JD, Thomson LE, Berman DS. Temporal trends in the frequency of inducible myocardial ischemia during cardiac stress testing: 1991 to 2009.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61:1054–1065. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.056CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Murthy VL, Nassir K. Staged testing as a solution to the challenges of testing lower risk patients.J Nucl Cardiol. [published online September 17, 2018]. doi: 10.1007/s12350-018-1437-y. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12350-018-1437-y. Accessed January 18, 2019.Google Scholar9. SCOT-HEART Investigators. CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial.Lancet. 2015; 385:2383–2391. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60291-4CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, Mark DB, Al-Khalidi HR, Cavanaugh B, Cole J, Dolor RJ, Fordyce CB, Huang M, Khan MA, Kosinski AS, Krucoff MW, Malhotra V, Picard MH, Udelson JE, Velazquez EJ, Yow E, Cooper LS, Lee KL; PROMISE Investigators. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease.N Engl J Med. 2015; 372:1291–1300. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415516CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Dreisbach JG, Nicol ED, Roobottom CA, Padley S, Roditi G. Challenges in delivering computed tomography coronary angiography as the first-line test for stable chest pain.Heart. 2018; 104:921–927. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311846CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Jang JJ, Bhapkar M, Coles A, Vemulapalli S, Fordyce CB, Lee KL, Udelson JE, Hoffman U, Tardif J-C, Schuyler Jones W, Mark DB, Sorrell VL, Espinoza A, Douglas PS, Patel MR; PROMISE Investigators. Predictive model for high-risk coronary artery disease: insights from the PROMISE Trial.Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018; 12:e007940. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.118.007940Google Scholar13. Fihn SD, Blankenship JC, Alexander KP, Bittl JA, Byrne JG, Fletcher BJ, Fonarow GC, Lange RA, Levine GN, Maddox TM, Naidu SS, Ohman EM, Smith PK. 2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS focused update of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.Circulation. 2014; 130:1749–1767. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000095LinkGoogle Scholar14. Yang Y, Chen L, Yam Y, Achenbach S, Al-Mallah M, Berman DS, Budoff MJ, Cademartiri F, Callister TQ, Chang HJ, Cheng VY, Chinnaiyan K, Cury R, Delago A, Dunning A, Feuchtner G, Hadamitzky M, Hausleiter J, Karlsberg RP, Kaufmann PA, Kim YJ, Leipsic J, LaBounty T, Lin F, Maffei E, Raff GL, Shaw LJ, Villines TC, Min JK, Chow BJW. A clinical model to identify patients with high-risk coronary artery disease.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015; 8:427–434. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.11.015CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Lu MT, Meyersohn NM, Mayrhofer T, Bittner DO, Emami H, Puchner SB, Foldyna B, Mueller ME, Hearne S, Yang C, Achenbach S, Truong QA, Ghoshhajra BB, Patel MR, Ferencik M, Douglas PS, Hoffmann U. Central core laboratory versus site interpretation of coronary CT angiography: agreement and association with cardiovascular events in the PROMISE Trial.Radiology. 2018; 287:87–95. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017172181CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesPredictive Model for High-Risk Coronary Artery DiseaseJames J. Jang, et al. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2019;12 February 2019Vol 12, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2019 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.118.008626PMID: 30712365 Originally publishedFebruary 4, 2019 KeywordsprevalenceEditorialschest painsmokingcaregiversblood pressurePDF download Advertisement SubjectsComputerized Tomography (CT)Risk Factors