Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study

Background. To compare two risk assessment strategies to identify individuals likely to benefit from further imaging testing in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and stable chest pain (SCP) suspected of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods. 602 DM patients referred to coronary compu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jia Zhao, Shuo Wang, Pengyu Zhao, Yong Huo, Chunjie Li, Jia Zhou
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2022-01-01
Series:Journal of Diabetes Research
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/8183487
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850223807011225600
author Jia Zhao
Shuo Wang
Pengyu Zhao
Yong Huo
Chunjie Li
Jia Zhou
author_facet Jia Zhao
Shuo Wang
Pengyu Zhao
Yong Huo
Chunjie Li
Jia Zhou
author_sort Jia Zhao
collection DOAJ
description Background. To compare two risk assessment strategies to identify individuals likely to benefit from further imaging testing in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and stable chest pain (SCP) suspected of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods. 602 DM patients referred to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for SCP were included. They were divided into high- and low-risk groups according to the 2016 National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guideline-determined strategy (NICE strategy) which focused on symptom evaluation and 2019 European Society of Cardiology guideline-determined strategy (ESC strategy) which was based on pretest probability (PTP) sequentially determined by the ESC-PTP estimator and risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood (RF-CL) model, respectively. The associations of clinical outcomes with risk groups and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were evaluated. Results. The NICE and ESC strategy classified 44% and 39% patients into the low-risk group, respectively. Compared to the NICE strategy, the ESC strategy indicated stronger associations between risk groups and events (hazard ratios: 4.24 versus 1.91), intensive clinical management, and a positive NRI (27.71%, p<0.0001). The application of the RF-CL model ameliorated the underestimation of risk in patients with borderline ESC-PTP, which principally account for the improvement of the ESC strategy. Conclusion. Compared to the NICE strategy, the ESC strategy seemed to be associated with greater efficiency in identifying high risk individuals in patients with DM and SCP.
format Article
id doaj-art-43b3311b4f524f52bce7e07bcc8f5c28
institution OA Journals
issn 2314-6753
language English
publishDate 2022-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Diabetes Research
spelling doaj-art-43b3311b4f524f52bce7e07bcc8f5c282025-08-20T02:05:49ZengWileyJournal of Diabetes Research2314-67532022-01-01202210.1155/2022/8183487Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography StudyJia Zhao0Shuo Wang1Pengyu Zhao2Yong Huo3Chunjie Li4Jia Zhou5Department of CardiologyGraduate SchoolSchool of Electrical and Information EngineeringDepartment of CardiologyDepartment of CardiologyDepartment of CardiologyBackground. To compare two risk assessment strategies to identify individuals likely to benefit from further imaging testing in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and stable chest pain (SCP) suspected of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods. 602 DM patients referred to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for SCP were included. They were divided into high- and low-risk groups according to the 2016 National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guideline-determined strategy (NICE strategy) which focused on symptom evaluation and 2019 European Society of Cardiology guideline-determined strategy (ESC strategy) which was based on pretest probability (PTP) sequentially determined by the ESC-PTP estimator and risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood (RF-CL) model, respectively. The associations of clinical outcomes with risk groups and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were evaluated. Results. The NICE and ESC strategy classified 44% and 39% patients into the low-risk group, respectively. Compared to the NICE strategy, the ESC strategy indicated stronger associations between risk groups and events (hazard ratios: 4.24 versus 1.91), intensive clinical management, and a positive NRI (27.71%, p<0.0001). The application of the RF-CL model ameliorated the underestimation of risk in patients with borderline ESC-PTP, which principally account for the improvement of the ESC strategy. Conclusion. Compared to the NICE strategy, the ESC strategy seemed to be associated with greater efficiency in identifying high risk individuals in patients with DM and SCP.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/8183487
spellingShingle Jia Zhao
Shuo Wang
Pengyu Zhao
Yong Huo
Chunjie Li
Jia Zhou
Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study
Journal of Diabetes Research
title Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study
title_full Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study
title_fullStr Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study
title_short Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study
title_sort comparison of risk assessment strategies for patients with diabetes mellitus and stable chest pain a coronary computed tomography angiography study
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/8183487
work_keys_str_mv AT jiazhao comparisonofriskassessmentstrategiesforpatientswithdiabetesmellitusandstablechestpainacoronarycomputedtomographyangiographystudy
AT shuowang comparisonofriskassessmentstrategiesforpatientswithdiabetesmellitusandstablechestpainacoronarycomputedtomographyangiographystudy
AT pengyuzhao comparisonofriskassessmentstrategiesforpatientswithdiabetesmellitusandstablechestpainacoronarycomputedtomographyangiographystudy
AT yonghuo comparisonofriskassessmentstrategiesforpatientswithdiabetesmellitusandstablechestpainacoronarycomputedtomographyangiographystudy
AT chunjieli comparisonofriskassessmentstrategiesforpatientswithdiabetesmellitusandstablechestpainacoronarycomputedtomographyangiographystudy
AT jiazhou comparisonofriskassessmentstrategiesforpatientswithdiabetesmellitusandstablechestpainacoronarycomputedtomographyangiographystudy