The CAD consortium clinical and basic scores more accurately predicted obstructive coronary artery disease than the Diamond-Forrester score (AUC 0.791 and 0.752 vs 0.713; P<0.001).
Observational (n=2,274)
Effect estimate: AUC 0.752 and 0.791
p-value: p=<0.001
BACKGROUND: The most appropriate score for evaluating the pretest probability of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) is unknown. We sought to compare the Diamond-Forrester (DF) score with the 2 CAD consortium scores recently recommended by the European Society of Cardiology. METHODS: We included 2274 consecutive patients (age, 56±13 years; 57% male) without prior CAD referred for coronary computed tomographic angiography. Computed tomographic angiography findings were used to determine the presence or absence of obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis). We compared the DF score with the 2 CAD consortium scores with respect to their ability to predict obstructive CAD and the potential implications of these scores on the downstream use of testing for CAD, as recommended by current guidelines. RESULTS: The DF score did not satisfactorily fit the data and resulted in a significant overestimation of the prevalence of obstructive CAD (P<0.001); the CAD consortium basic score had no significant lack of fitness; and the CAD consortium clinical provided adequate goodness of fit (P=0.39). The DF score had a lower discrimination for obstructive CAD, with an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of 0.713 versus 0.752 and 0.791 for the CAD consortium models (P<0.001 for both). Consequently, the use of the DF score was associated with fewer individuals being categorized as requiring no additional testing (8.3%) compared with the CAD consortium models (24.6% and 30.0%; P<0.001). The proportion of individuals with a high pretest probability was 18% with the DF and only 1.1% with the CAD consortium scores (P<0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Among contemporary patients referred for noninvasive testing, the DF risk score overestimates the risk of obstructive CAD. On the other hand, the CAD consortium scores offered improved goodness of fit and discrimination; thus, their use could decrease the need for noninvasive or invasive testing while increasing the yield of such tests.
Bittencourt et al. (Thu,) conducted a observational in Obstructive coronary artery disease (n=2,274). CAD consortium scores (basic and clinical) vs. Diamond-Forrester (DF) score was evaluated on Discrimination for obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis) (AUC 0.752 and 0.791, p=<0.001). The CAD consortium clinical and basic scores more accurately predicted obstructive coronary artery disease than the Diamond-Forrester score (AUC 0.791 and 0.752 vs 0.713; P<0.001).