Suppr超能文献

基于 CT 的 Leiden 评分在预测疑似冠心病的糖尿病患者的主要不良心血管事件方面优于 Confirm 评分。

CT-Based Leiden Score Outperforms Confirm Score in Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events for Diabetic Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease.

机构信息

Medical School of Chinese PLA, Beijing, China.

Department of Cardiology, the Sixth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Korean J Radiol. 2022 Oct;23(10):939-948. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2022.0115. Epub 2022 Sep 5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Evidence supports the efficacy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based risk scores in cardiovascular risk stratification of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to compare two CCTA-based risk score algorithms, Leiden and Confirm scores, in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and suspected CAD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort study consecutively included 1241 DM patients (54.1% male, 60.2 ± 10.4 years) referred for CCTA for suspected CAD in 2015-2017. Leiden and Confirm scores were calculated and stratified as < 5 (reference), 5-20, and > 20 for Leiden and < 14.3 (reference), 14.3-19.5, and > 19.5 for Confirm. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as the composite outcomes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization. The Cox model and Kaplan-Meier method were used to evaluate the effect size of the risk scores on MACE. The area under the curve (AUC) at the median follow-up time was also compared between score algorithms.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range, 27.6-37.3 months), 131 of MACE were recorded, including 17 cardiovascular deaths, 28 nonfatal MIs, 64 unstable anginas requiring hospitalization, and 22 strokes. An incremental incidence of MACE was observed in both Leiden and Confirm scores, with an increase in the scores (log-rank < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, compared with Leiden score < 5, the hazard ratios for Leiden scores of 5-20 and > 20 were 2.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53-3.69; < 0.001) and 4.39 (95% CI: 2.40-8.01; < 0.001), respectively, while the Confirm score did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with the risk of MACE. The Leiden score showed a greater AUC of 0.840 compared to 0.777 for the Confirm score ( < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

CCTA-based risk score algorithms could be used as reliable cardiovascular risk predictors in patients with DM and suspected CAD, among which the Leiden score outperformed the Confirm score in predicting MACE.

摘要

目的

有证据表明,基于冠状动脉 CT 血管造影(CCTA)的风险评分可有效对疑似冠心病(CAD)患者进行心血管风险分层。本研究旨在比较两种基于 CCTA 的风险评分算法(莱顿和确认评分)在糖尿病(DM)合并疑似 CAD 患者中的应用。

材料与方法

本单中心前瞻性队列研究连续纳入了 2015 年至 2017 年间因疑似 CAD 而接受 CCTA 检查的 1241 例 DM 患者(54.1%为男性,60.2±10.4 岁)。计算莱顿和确认评分,并分别将其划分为<5(参考值)、5-20 和>20 分用于莱顿评分,<14.3(参考值)、14.3-19.5 和>19.5 分用于确认评分。主要不良心血管事件(MACE)定义为心血管死亡、非致死性心肌梗死(MI)、卒中和需要住院治疗的不稳定型心绞痛的复合结局。采用 Cox 模型和 Kaplan-Meier 方法评估风险评分对 MACE 的影响大小。还比较了评分算法之间中位随访时间的曲线下面积(AUC)。

结果

中位随访 31 个月(四分位距,27.6-37.3 个月)期间,记录到 131 例 MACE,包括 17 例心血管死亡、28 例非致死性 MI、64 例需要住院治疗的不稳定型心绞痛和 22 例卒。莱顿和确认评分均显示出 MACE 发生率逐渐增加,评分升高(对数秩检验<0.001)。多变量分析显示,与莱顿评分<5 相比,莱顿评分 5-20 和>20 分的危险比分别为 2.37(95%置信区间[CI]:1.53-3.69;<0.001)和 4.39(95%CI:2.40-8.01;<0.001),而确认评分与 MACE 风险无统计学显著相关性。莱顿评分的 AUC 为 0.840,优于确认评分的 0.777(<0.001)。

结论

基于 CCTA 的风险评分算法可作为 DM 合并疑似 CAD 患者可靠的心血管风险预测指标,其中莱顿评分在预测 MACE 方面优于确认评分。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2393/9523227/361cc223f95d/kjr-23-939-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验