ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2019
Invasive coronary angiography findings across the CAD-RADS classification spectrum.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary artery calcification score as the determinant of coronary artery disease in chronic kidney disease patients: A preliminary study.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2024Article
- CAD-RADS™ 2.0 - 2022 Coronary Artery Disease - Reporting and Data System An Expert Consensus Document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the North America Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI).Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2022Article
- Coronary artery disease imaging reporting and data system (CAD-RADS): what radiologists need to know?Emergency radiology · 2021Review
- Cardiovascular imaging 2019 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recently introduced coronary artery disease reporting and data system (CAD-RADS) evaluated by computed tomography and based on stenosis severity, might not adequately reflect the complexity of CAD. We explored the relationship between CAD-RADS and the spatial distribution, burden, and complexity of lesions by invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Stable patients who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and ICA comprised the study population. Patients were classified according to the CAD-RADS: 0, No plaque; 1, 1-24% stenosis; 2, 25-49%; 3, 50-69%; 4A, 70-99%; 4B, left main stenosis or 3-vessel obstructive disease; and 5, total occlusion. Based on ICA findings, we calculated the SYNTAX score and the CAD extension index. Ninety-one patients were included, with a mean age of 61.4 ± 10.5 years (74% male). We found significant relationships between CAD-RADS and both the SYNTAX score (p < 0.0001) and the CAD extension index (p < 0.0001), although the complexity of coronary anatomy differed among patients with CAD-RADS ≥ 4A. Among patients with CAD-RADS < 4, the mean segment involvement score (SIS) was 8.4 ± 4.0, 52% of them with a SIS > 5. Of the 30 patients with CAD-RADS 5, 9 (30%) affected distal segments or secondary branches, and 9 (30%) had concomitant severe non-extensive disease at ICA. Regarding the spatial distribution of the non-occluded most severe lesions, 27 (44%) comprised distal segments or secondary branches. In the present study including a high-risk population, we identified diverse coronary anatomy complexity scenarios and relevant differences in spatial distribution sharing the same CAD-RADS classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.