Skip to main content
Open Access Publications from the University of California


UCLA Previously Published Works bannerUCLA

A Clinical model to identify patients with high-risk coronary artery disease

  • Author(s): Yang, Y;
  • Chen, L;
  • Yam, Y;
  • Achenbach, S;
  • Al-Mallah, M;
  • Berman, DS;
  • Budoff, MJ;
  • Cademartiri, F;
  • Callister, TQ;
  • Chang, HJ;
  • Cheng, VY;
  • Chinnaiyan, K;
  • Cury, R;
  • Delago, A;
  • Dunning, A;
  • Feuchtner, G;
  • Hadamitzky, M;
  • Hausleiter, J;
  • Karlsberg, RP;
  • Kaufmann, PA;
  • Kim, YJ;
  • Leipsic, J;
  • Labounty, T;
  • Lin, F;
  • Maffei, E;
  • Raff, GL;
  • Shaw, LJ;
  • Villines, TC;
  • Min, JK;
  • Chow, BJW
  • et al.

Objectives This study sought to develop a clinical model that identifies patients with and without high-risk coronary artery disease (CAD). Background Although current clinical models help to estimate a patient's pre-test probability of obstructive CAD, they do not accurately identify those patients with and without high-risk coronary anatomy. Methods Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected multinational coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) cohort was conducted. High-risk anatomy was defined as left main diameter stenosis ≥50%, 3-vessel disease with diameter stenosis ≥70%, or 2-vessel disease involving the proximal left anterior descending artery. Using a cohort of 27,125, patients with a history of CAD, cardiac transplantation, and congenital heart disease were excluded. The model was derived from 24,251 consecutive patients in the derivation cohort and an additional 7,333 nonoverlapping patients in the validation cohort. Results The risk score consisted of 9 variables: age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, current smoking, hyperlipidemia, family history of CAD, history of peripheral vascular disease, and chest pain symptoms. Patients were divided into 3 risk categories: low (≤7 points), intermediate (8 to 17 points) and high (≥18 points). The model was statistically robust with area under the curve of 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 0.78) in the derivation cohort and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.74) in the validation cohort. Patients who scored ≤7 points had a low negative likelihood ratio (<0.1), whereas patients who scored ≥18 points had a high specificity of 99.3% and a positive likelihood ratio (8.48). In the validation group, the prevalence of high-risk CAD was 1% in patients with ≤7 points and 16.7% in those with ≥18 points. Conclusions We propose a scoring system, based on clinical variables, that can be used to identify patients at high and low pre-test probability of having high-risk CAD. Identification of these populations may detect those who may benefit from a trial of medical therapy and those who may benefit most from an invasive strategy.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Main Content
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Current View