ArticleAtherosclerosis2021
The incremental value of angiographic features for predicting recurrent cardiovascular events: Insights from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease.
Article in Atherosclerosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lipid-lowering medication reduces more target lesion than non-target lesion revascularizations: a cohort study.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Real-World Data on the Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Flow Pump (Impella) in High-Risk Patients.Korean circulation journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsIdentifying patient subgroups with cardiovascular disease (CVD) at highest risk for recurrent events remains challenging. Angiographic features may provide incremental value in risk prediction beyond clinical characteristics.
methodsWe included all cardiac catheterization patients from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease with significant coronary artery disease (CAD; 07/01/2007-12/31/2012) and an outpatient follow-up visit with a primary care physician or cardiologist in the same health system within 3 months post-catheterization. Follow-up occurred for 3 years for the primary major adverse cardiovascular event endpoint (time to all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke). A multivariable model to predict recurrent events was developed based on clinical variables only, then adding angiographic variables from the catheterization. Next, we compared discrimination of clinical vs. clinical plus angiographic risk prediction models.
resultsAmong 3366 patients with angiographically-defined CAD, 633 (19.2%) experienced cardiovascular events (death, MI, or stroke) within 3 years. A multivariable model including 18 baseline clinical factors and initial revascularization had modest ability to predict future atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events (c-statistic = 0.716). Among angiographic predictors, number of diseased vessels, left main stenosis, left anterior descending stenosis, and the Duke CAD Index had the highest value for secondary risk prediction; however, the clinical plus angiographic model only slightly improved discrimination (c-statistic = 0.724; delta 0.008). The net benefit for angiographic features was also small, with a relative integrated discrimination improvement of 0.05 (95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.08).
conclusionsThe inclusion of coronary angiographic features added little incremental value in secondary risk prediction beyond clinical characteristics.
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.