A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal

Exercise electrocardiography for pre-test assessment of the likelihood of coronary artery disease




AuthorsRasmussen Laust Dupont, Schmidt Samuel Emil, Knuuti Juhani, Newby David E., Singh Trisha, Nieman Koen, Galema Tjebbe W., Vrints Christiaan, Bøttcher Morten, Winther Simon

PublisherBMJ PUBLISHING GROUP

Publication year2023

JournalHeart

Journal name in sourceHEART

Journal acronymHEART

Number of pages8

ISSN1355-6037

eISSN1468-201X

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2023-322970

Web address http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2023-322970

Self-archived copy’s web addresshttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11820/73a5632c-54b0-4606-9c3d-f995fadd0713


Abstract

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.



Last updated on 2024-26-11 at 23:40