Dataset Information

Prognostic Value of Coronary CTA in Stable Chest Pain: CAD-RADS, CAC, and Cardiovascular Events in PROMISE.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) to traditional stenosis categories and the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) for predicting cardiovascular events in patients with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD).

Background

The 2016 CAD-RADS has been established to standardize the reporting of CAD on coronary CT angiography (CTA).

Methods

PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial participants' CTAs were assessed by a central CT core laboratory for CACS, traditional stenosis-based categories, and modified CAD-RADS grade including high-risk coronary plaque (HRP) features. Traditional stenosis categories and CAD-RADS grade were compared for the prediction of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina over a median follow-up of 25 months. Incremental prognostic value over traditional risk factors and CACS was assessed.

Results

In 3,840 eligible patients (mean age: 60.4 ± 8.2 years; 49% men), 3.0% (115) experienced events. CAD-RADS (concordance statistic [C-statistic] 0.747) had significantly higher discriminatory value than traditional stenosis-based assessments (C-statistic 0.698 to 0.717; all p for comparison ≤0.001). With no plaque (CAD-RADS 0) as the baseline, the hazard ratio (HR) for an event increased from 2.43 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 5.08) for CAD-RADS 1 to 21.84 (95% CI: 8.63 to 55.26) for CAD-RADS 4b and 5. In stepwise nested models, CAD-RADS added incremental prognostic value beyond ASCVD risk score and CACS (C-statistic 0.776 vs. 0.682; p < 0.001), and added incremental value persisted in all CACS strata.

Conclusions

These data from a large representative contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary CTA for stable chest pain support the prognostic value of CAD-RADS as a standard reporting system for coronary CTA.

SUBMITTER: Bittner DO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7202954 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe study sought to compare Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) classification with traditional coronary artery disease (CAD) classifications and Duke Prognostic CAD Index for predicting the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with suspected CAD.Methods9625 consecutive suspected CAD patients were assessed by coronary CTA for CAD-RADS classification, traditional CAD classifications and Duke Prognostic CAD Index. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models were used to estimate all-cause mortality. Discriminatory ability of classifications was assessed using time dependent receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was employed to evaluate calibration.ResultsA total of 540 patients died from all causes with a median follow-up of 4.3 ± 2.1 years. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed the cumulative events increased significantly associated with CAD-RADS, three traditional CAD classifications and Duke Prognostic CAD Index. In multivariate Cox regressions, the risk for the all-cause death increased from HR 0.861 (95% CI 0.420-1.764) for CAD-RADS 1 to HR 2.761 (95% CI 1.961-3.887) for CAD-RADS 4B&5, using CAD-RADS 0 as the reference group. The relative HRs for all-cause death increased proportionally with the grades of the three traditional CAD classifications and Duke Prognostic CAD Index. The area under the time dependent ROC curve for prediction of all-cause death was 0.7917, 0.7805, 0.7991for CAD-RADS in 1 year, 3 year, 5 year, respectively, which was non-inferior to the traditional CAD classifications and Duke Prognostic CAD Index.ConclusionsThe CAD-RADS classification provided important prognostic information for patients with suspected CAD with noninvasive evaluation, which was non-inferior than Duke Prognostic CAD Index and traditional stenosis-based grading schemes in prognostic value of all-cause mortality. Traditional and simplest CAD classification should be preferable, given the more number of groups and complexity of CAD-RADS and Duke prognostic index, without using more time consuming classification.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is an established predictor of future major adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in asymptomatic individuals. However, limited data exist as to how CAC compares with functional testing (FT) in estimating prognosis in symptomatic patients. METHODS:In the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain), patients with stable chest pain (or dyspnea) and intermediate pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease were randomized to FT (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress, or stress echocardiography) or anatomic testing. We evaluated those who underwent CAC testing as part of the anatomic evaluation (n=4209) and compared that with results of FT (n=4602). We stratified CAC and FT results as normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal (for CAC: 0, 1-99 Agatston score [AS], 100-400 AS, and >400 AS, respectively; for FT: normal, mild=late positive treadmill, moderate=early positive treadmill or single-vessel ischemia, and severe=large ischemic region abnormality). The primary end point was all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalization over a median follow-up of 26.1 months. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and C statistics to determine predictive and discriminatory values. RESULTS:Overall, the distribution of normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal test results was significantly different between FT and CAC (FT: normal, n=3588 [78.0%]; mild, n=432 [9.4%]; moderate, n=217 [4.7%]; severe, n=365 [7.9%]; CAC: normal, n=1457 [34.6%]; mild, n=1340 [31.8%]; moderate, n=772 [18.3%]; severe, n=640 [15.2%]; P<0.0001). Moderate and severe abnormalities in both arms robustly predicted events (moderate: CAC: HR, 3.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-5.44; and FT: HR, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.83; severe: CAC: HR, 3.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-6.36; and FT: HR, 3.88; 95% confidence interval, 2.58-5.85). In the CAC arm, the majority of events (n=112 of 133, 84%) occurred in patients with any positive CAC test (score >0), whereas fewer than half of events occurred in patients with mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal FT (n=57 of 132, 43%; P<0.001). In contrast, any abnormality on FT was significantly more specific for predicting events (78.6% for FT versus 35.2% for CAC; P<0.001). Overall discriminatory ability in predicting the primary end point of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unstable angina hospitalization was similar and fair for both CAC and FT (C statistic, 0.67 versus 0.64). Coronary computed tomographic angiography provided significantly better prognostic information compared with FT and CAC testing (C index, 0.72). CONCLUSIONS:Among stable outpatients presenting with suspected coronary artery disease, most patients experiencing clinical events have measurable CAC at baseline, and fewer than half have any abnormalities on FT. However, an abnormal FT was more specific for cardiovascular events, leading to overall similarly modest discriminatory abilities of both tests. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Optimal management of patients with stable chest pain relies on the prognostic information provided by noninvasive cardiovascular testing, but there are limited data from randomized trials comparing anatomic with functional testing. METHODS:In the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain), patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) were randomly assigned to functional testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress, or stress echocardiography) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). Site-based diagnostic test reports were classified as normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal. The primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalizations over a median follow-up of 26.1 months. RESULTS:Both the prevalence of normal test results and incidence rate of events in these patients were significantly lower among 4500 patients randomly assigned to CTA in comparison with 4602 patients randomly assigned to functional testing (33.4% versus 78.0%, and 0.9% versus 2.1%, respectively; both P<0.001). In CTA, 54.0% of events (n=74/137) occurred in patients with nonobstructive CAD (1%-69% stenosis). Prevalence of obstructive CAD and myocardial ischemia was low (11.9% versus 12.7%, respectively), with both findings having similar prognostic value (hazard ratio, 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.60-5.39; and 3.47; 95% CI, 2.42-4.99). When test findings were stratified as mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal, hazard ratios for events in comparison with normal tests increased proportionally for CTA (2.94, 7.67, 10.13; all P<0.001) but not for corresponding functional testing categories (0.94 [P=0.87], 2.65 [P=0.001], 3.88 [P<0.001]). The discriminatory ability of CTA in predicting events was significantly better than functional testing (c-index, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68-0.76 versus 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.69; P=0.04). If 2714 patients with at least an intermediate Framingham Risk Score (>10%) who had a normal functional test were reclassified as being mildly abnormal, the discriminatory capacity improved to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.74). CONCLUSIONS:Coronary CTA, by identifying patients at risk because of nonobstructive CAD, provides better prognostic information than functional testing in contemporary patients who have stable chest pain with a low burden of obstructive CAD, myocardial ischemia, and events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study sought to externally validate prediction models for the presence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND:A better assessment of the probability of CAD may improve the identification of patients who benefit from noninvasive testing. METHODS:Stable chest pain patients from the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial with computed tomography angiography (CTA) or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were included. The authors assumed that patients with CTA showing 0% stenosis and a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score of 0 were free of obstructive CAD (?50% stenosis) on ICA, and they multiply imputed missing ICA results based on clinical variables and CTA results. Predicted CAD probabilities were calculated using published coefficients for 3 models: basic model (age, sex, chest pain type), clinical model (basic model + diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking), and clinical + CAC score model. The authors assessed discrimination and calibration, and compared published effects with observed predictor effects. RESULTS:In 3,468 patients (1,805 women; mean 60 years of age; 779 [23%] with obstructive CAD on CTA), the models demonstrated moderate-good discrimination, with C-statistics of 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67 to 0.72), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.74), and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.88) for the basic, clinical, and clinical + CAC score models, respectively. Calibration was satisfactory although typical chest pain and diabetes were less predictive and CAC score was more predictive than was suggested by the models. Among the 31% of patients for whom the clinical model predicted a low (?10%) probability of CAD, actual prevalence was 7%; among the 48% for whom the clinical + CAC score model predicted a low probability the observed prevalence was 2%. In 2 sensitivity analyses excluding imputed data, similar results were obtained using CTA as the outcome, whereas in those who underwent ICA the models significantly underestimated CAD probability. CONCLUSIONS:Existing clinical prediction models can identify patients with a low probability of obstructive CAD. Obstructive CAD on ICA was imputed for 61% of patients; hence, further validation is necessary.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines recommend noninvasive testing for patients with stable chest pain, although many subsequently have normal test results and no adverse clinical events.ObjectiveTo describe a risk tool developed to use only pretest clinical data to identify patients with chest pain with normal coronary arteries and no clinical events during follow-up (minimal-risk cohort).Design, setting, and participantsThis secondary analysis of a randomized, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain [PROMISE]) includes stable, symptomatic outpatients without known coronary artery disease referred for noninvasive testing at 193 sites in North America.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) vs functional testing.Main outcomes and measuresA low-risk tool was developed and internally validated from July 27, 2010, to September 19, 2013, in 4631 patients receiving CCTA as their initial test, with a median follow-up of 25 months. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate pretest variables to determine factors associated with minimal risk using a two-thirds random sample for model derivation (n = 3087) and a one-third sample for testing and validation (n = 1544). The model was then applied to the CCTA and functional testing arms, and test results and event rates were ascertained.ResultsA total of 1243 of 4631 patients (26.8%) were in the minimal-risk cohort. The final minimal-risk model included 10 clinical variables that together were correlated with normal CCTA results and no clinical events (C statistic = 0.725 for the derivation and validation subsets; 95% CI, 0.705-0.746): younger age; female sex; racial or ethnic minority; no history of hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidemia; family history of premature coronary artery disease; never smoking; symptoms unrelated to physical or mental stress; and higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. Across the entire PROMISE cohort, this model was associated with the lowest rates of severely abnormal test results (1.3% for CCTA; 5.6% for functional) and cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (0.5% for a median of 25 months) among patients at the highest probability (10th decile) of minimal risk.Conclusions and relevanceIn contemporary practice, more than 25% of patients with stable chest pain referred for noninvasive testing will have normal coronary arteries and no long-term clinical events. A clinical tool using readily available pretest variables discriminates such minimal-risk patients, for whom deferred testing may be considered.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01174550.

Project description:Importance:Coronary computed tomographic angiography (coronary CTA) can characterize coronary artery disease, including high-risk plaque. A noninvasive method of identifying high-risk plaque before major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) could provide practice-changing optimizations in coronary artery disease care. Objective:To determine whether high-risk plaque detected by coronary CTA was associated with incident MACE independently of significant stenosis (SS) and cardiovascular risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants:This prespecified nested observational cohort study was part of the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial. All stable, symptomatic outpatients in this trial who required noninvasive cardiovascular testing and received coronary CTA were included and followed up for a median of 25 months. Exposures:Core laboratory assessment of coronary CTA for SS and high-risk plaque (eg, positive remodeling, low computed tomographic attenuation, or napkin-ring sign). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point was an adjudicated composite of MACE (defined as death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina). Results:The study included 4415 patients, of whom 2296 (52%) were women, with a mean age of 60.5 years, a median atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score of 11, and a MACE rate of 3% (131 events). A total of 676 patients (15.3%) had high-risk plaques, and 276 (6.3%) had SS. The presence of high-risk plaque was associated with a higher MACE rate (6.4% vs 2.4%; hazard ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.89-3.93). This association persisted after adjustment for ASCVD risk score and SS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.13-2.62). Adding high-risk plaque to the ASCVD risk score and SS assessment led to a significant continuous net reclassification improvement (0.34; 95% CI, 0.02-0.51). Presence of high-risk plaque increased MACE risk among patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease relative to patients without high-risk plaque (aHR, 4.31 vs 2.64; 95% CI, 2.25-8.26 vs 1.49-4.69). There were no significant differences in MACE in patients with SS and high-risk plaque as opposed to those with SS but not high-risk plaque (aHR, 8.68 vs. 9.31; 95% CI, 4.25-17.73 vs 4.21-20.61). High-risk plaque was a stronger predictor of MACE in women (aHR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.25-4.64) vs men (aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.81-2.39) and younger patients (aHR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.20-4.51) vs older ones (aHR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.77-2.39). Conclusions and Relevance:High-risk plaque found by coronary CTA was associated with a future MACE in a large US population of outpatients with stable chest pain. High-risk plaque may be an additional risk stratification tool, especially in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease, younger patients, and women. The importance of findings is limited by low absolute MACE rates and low positive predictive value of high-risk plaque. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Indentifier: NCT01174550.