Cited by 32Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Coronary atherosclerosis scoring with semiquantitative CCTA risk scores for prediction of major adverse cardiac events: propensity score-based analysis of diabetic and non-diabetic patients

Open access
van den Hoogen, Inge J., van Rosendael, Alexander R., Lin, Fay Y., Lu, Yao, Dimitriu-Leen, Aukelien C., Smit, Jeff M., Scholte, Arthur J.H.A., Achenbach, Stephan +30 more·2020·Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

Abstract

Aims We aimed to compare semiquantitative coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) risk scores - which score presence, extent, composition, stenosis and/or location of coronary artery disease (CAD) - and their prognostic value between patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). Risk scores derived from general chest-pain populations are often challenging to apply in DM patients, because of numerous confounders. Methods Out of a combined cohort from the Leiden University Medical Center and the CONFIRM registry with 5-year follow-up data, we performed a secondary analysis in diabetic patients with suspected CAD who were clinically referred for CCTA. A total of 732 DM patients was 1:1 propensity-matched with 732 non-DM patients by age, sex and cardiovascular risk factors. A subset of 7 semiquantitative CCTA risk scores was compared between groups: 1) any stenosis ≥50%, 2) any stenosis ≥70%, 3) stenosis-severity component of the coronary artery disease-reporting and data system (CAD-RADS), 4) segment involvement score (SIS), 5) segment stenosis score (SSS), 6) CT-adapted Leaman score (CT-LeSc), and 7) Leiden CCTA risk score. Cox-regression analysis was performed to assess the association between the scores and the primary endpoint of all-cause death and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Also, area under the receiver-operating characteristics curves were compared to evaluate discriminatory ability. Results A total of 1,464 DM and non-DM patients (mean age 58 ± 12 years, 40% women) underwent CCTA and 155 (11%) events were documented after median follow-up of 5.1 years. In DM patients, the 7 semiquantitative CCTA risk scores were significantly more prevalent or higher as compared to non-DM patients (p ≤ 0.022). All scores were independently associated with the primary endpoint in both patients with and without DM (p ≤ 0.020), with non-significant interaction between the scores and diabetes (interaction p ≥ 0.109). Discriminatory ability of the Leiden CCTA risk score in DM patients was significantly better than any stenosis ≥50% and ≥70% (p = 0.003 and p = 0.007, respectively), but comparable to the CAD-RADS, SIS, SSS and CT-LeSc that also focus on the extent of CAD (p ≥ 0.265). Conclusion Coronary atherosclerosis scoring with semiquantitative CCTA risk scores incorporating the total extent of CAD discriminate major adverse cardiac events well, and might be useful for risk stratification of patients with DM beyond the binary evaluation of obstructive stenosis alone.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcct.2019.11.015

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The SSS and SIS have demonstrated clinical validity in detecting major adverse cardiac events in multiple populations.

    “The SSS and SIS have demonstrated clinical validity in detecting major adverse cardiac events in multiple populations.15–19”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Hoogen, I. J., van Rosendael, A. R., Lin, F. Y., Lu, Y., Dimitriu-Leen, A. C., Smit, J. M., Scholte, A. J. H. A., Achenbach, S., Al-Mallah, M. H., Andreini, D., Berman, D. S., Budoff, M. J., Cademartiri, F., Callister, T. Q., Chang, H.-J., Chinnaiyan, K., Chow, B. J. W., Cury, R. C., DeLago, A., Feuchtner, G., Hadamitzky, M., Hausleiter, J., Kaufmann, P. A., Kim, Y.-J., Leipsic, J. A., Maffei, E., Marques, H., de Araújo Gonçalves, P., Pontone, G., Raff, G. L., Rubinshtein, R., Villines, T. C., Gransar, H., Jones, E. C., Peña, J. M., Shaw, L. J., Min, J. K., & Bax, J. J.
Affiliations
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
  • King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (SA)
  • Centro Cardiologico Monzino (IT)
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • The Lundquist Institute (US)
  • Yonsei University (KR)
  • Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital (US)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Capital Cardiology Associates (US)
  • Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
  • Deutsches Herzzentrum München (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Seoul National University Hospital (KR)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Hospital da Luz (PT)
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Bax, Jeroen J.
Venue
Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
251-257
ISSN
  • 1876-861X (ISSN-L)
  • 1934-5925
OpenAlex
W2920695315
Cited by
31
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medtronic
  • GE Healthcare
  • Dalio Foundation
  • Michael Wolk Heart Foundation
  • Biotronik
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 HL115150)
  • Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
coronary artery disease, coronary CT angiography, diabetes mellitus, major adverse cardiac events, CAD-RADS, segment involvement score, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, propensity score matching, prognostic value, coronary artery stenosis
MeSH terms
Computed Tomography Angiography, Aged, Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Registries, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Case-Control Studies, Coronary Angiography, Disease Progression, Risk Assessment, Coronary Stenosis, Propensity Score, Multidetector Computed Tomography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review