A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Exercise electrocardiography for pre-test assessment of the likelihood of coronary artery disease
Authors: Rasmussen Laust Dupont, Schmidt Samuel Emil, Knuuti Juhani, Newby David E., Singh Trisha, Nieman Koen, Galema Tjebbe W., Vrints Christiaan, Bøttcher Morten, Winther Simon
Publisher: BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
Publication year: 2023
Journal: Heart
Journal name in source: HEART
Journal acronym: HEART
Number of pages: 8
ISSN: 1355-6037
eISSN: 1468-201X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2023-322970
Web address : http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2023-322970
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11820/73a5632c-54b0-4606-9c3d-f995fadd0713
Objectives
To develop a tool including exercise electrocardiography (ExECG) for patient-specific clinical likelihood estimation of patients with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).
Methods
An ExECG-weighted clinical likelihood (ExECG-CL) model was developed in a training cohort of patients with suspected obstructive CAD undergoing ExECG. Next, the ExECG-CL model was applied in a CAD validation cohort undergoing ExECG and clinically driven invasive coronary angiography and a prognosis validation cohort and compared with the risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood (RF-CL) model for obstructive CAD discrimination and prognostication, respectively.In the CAD validation cohort, obstructive CAD was defined as >50% diameter stenosis on invasive coronary angiography. For prognosis, the endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction and death.
Results
The training cohort consisted of 1214 patients (mean age 57 years, 57% males). In the CAD (N=408; mean age 55 years, 53% males) and prognosis validation (N=3283; mean age 57 years, 57% males) cohorts, 11.8% patients had obstructive CAD and 4.4% met the endpoint. In the CAD validation cohort, discrimination of obstructive CAD was similar between the ExECG-CL and RF-CL models: area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves 83.1% (95% CIs 77.5% to 88.7%) versus 80.7% (95% CI 74.6% to 86.8%), p=0.14. In the ExECG-CL model, more patients had very low (≤5%) clinical likelihood of obstructive CAD compared with the RF-CL (42.2% vs 36.0%, p<0.01) where obstructive CAD prevalence and event risk remained low.
Conclusions
ExECG incorporated into a clinical likelihood model improves reclassification of patients to a very low clinical likelihood group with very low prevalence of obstructive CAD and favourable prognosis.