These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A Comparison of the Updated Diamond-Forrester, CAD Consortium, and CONFIRM History-Based Risk Scores for Predicting Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: The SCOT-HEART Coronary CTA Cohort.
    Author: Baskaran L, Danad I, Gransar H, Ó Hartaigh B, Schulman-Marcus J, Lin FY, Peña JM, Hunter A, Newby DE, Adamson PD, Min JK.
    Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging; 2019 Jul; 12(7 Pt 2):1392-1400. PubMed ID: 29680338.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of history-based risk scores in predicting obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) among patients with stable chest pain from the SCOT-HEART study. BACKGROUND: Risk scores for estimating pre-test probability of CAD are derived from referral-based populations with a high prevalence of disease. The generalizability of these scores to lower prevalence populations in the initial patient encounter for chest pain is uncertain. METHODS: We compared 3 scores among patients with suspected CAD in the coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) randomized arm of the SCOT-HEART study for the outcome of obstructive CAD by coronary CTA: the updated Diamond-Forrester score (UDF), CAD Consortium clinical score (CAD2), and CONFIRM risk score (CRS). We tested calibration with goodness-of-fit, discrimination with area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC), and reclassification with net reclassification improvement (NRI) to identify low-risk patients. RESULTS: In 1,738 patients (age 58 ± 10 years and 44.0% women), overall calibration was best for UDF, with underestimation by CRS and CAD2. Discrimination by AUC was highest for CAD2 at 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77 to 0.81) than for UDF (0.77 [95% CI: 0.74 to 0.79]) or CRS (0.75 [95% CI: 0.73 to 0.77]) (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Reclassification of low-risk patients at the 10% probability threshold was best for CAD2 (NRI 0.31, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.35) followed by CRS (NRI 0.21, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.25) compared with UDF (p < 0.001 for all comparisons), with a consistent trend at the 15% threshold. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter clinic-based cohort of patients with suspected CAD and uniform CAD evaluation by coronary CTA, CAD2 provided the best discrimination and classification, despite overestimation of obstructive CAD as evaluated by coronary CTA. CRS exhibited intermediate performance followed by UDF for discrimination and reclassification.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]