ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2022
CAD-RADS may underestimate coronary plaque progression as detected by serial CT angiography.
Article in European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction and critical feature analysis for coronary artery calcification progression.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Integrated Coronary CT Angiography Assessment of Plaque Vulnerability and Clinical Outcomes: The Morphology-Inflammation-Burden (MIB) Score.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Incremental prognostic value of CCTA-based myocardial radiomics over clinical factors, anatomic and hemodynamic CTA findings in patients with stable angina.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Using AI-Quantitative CT to evaluate the relationship between coronary artery calcium and segment involvement scores in quantifying coronary plaque burden.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- What role for cardiac imaging in chronic coronary syndromes: review of the literature in light of the latest recommendations.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Review
- Moving towards a uniform diagnosis of coronary artery disease on coronary CTA : Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System 2.0.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Review
- Imaging biomarkers in cardiac CT: moving beyond simple coronary anatomical assessment.La Radiologia medica · 2024Review
- The value of Coronary Artery Disease - Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) in Outcome Prediction of CAD Patients; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2023Review
- Multimodality Imaging in Ischemic Chronic Cardiomyopathy.Journal of imaging · 2022Review
- First in-human quantitative plaque characterization with ultra-high resolution coronary photon-counting CT angiography.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsWe wished to assess whether different clinical definitions of coronary artery disease (CAD) [segment stenosis and involvement score (SSS, SIS), Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS)] affect which patients are considered to progress and which risk factors affect progression. METHODS AND
resultsWe enrolled 115 subsequent patients (60.1 ± 9.6 years, 27% female) who underwent serial coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) imaging with >1year between the two examinations. CAD was described using SSS, SIS, and CAD-RADS. Linear mixed models were used to investigate the effects of risk factors on the overall amount of CAD and the effect on annual progression rate of different definitions. Coronary plaque burdens were SSS 4.63 ± 4.06 vs. 5.67 ± 5.10, P < 0.001; SIS 3.43 ± 2.53 vs. 3.89 ± 2.65, P < 0.001; CAD-RADS 0:8.7% vs. 0.0% 1:44.3% vs. 40.9%, 2:34.8% vs. 40.9%, 3:7.0% vs. 9.6% 4:3.5% vs. 6.1% 5:1.7% vs. 2.6%, P < 0.001, at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Overall, 53.0%, 29.6%, and 28.7% of patients progressed over time based on SSS, SIS, and CAD-RADS, respectively. Of the patients who progressed based on SSS, only 54% showed changes in CAD-RADS. Smoking and diabetes increased the annual progression rate of SSS by 0.37/year and 0.38/year, respectively (both P < 0.05). Furthermore, each year increase in age raised SSS by 0.12 [confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.20, P = 0.001] and SIS 0.10 (CI 0.06-0.15, P < 0.001), while female sex was associated with 2.86 lower SSS (CI -4.52 to -1.20, P < 0.001) and 1.68 SIS values (CI -2.65 to -0.77, P = 0.001).
conclusionCAD-RADS could not capture the progression of CAD in almost half of patients with serial CTA. Differences in CAD definitions may lead to significant differences in patients who are considered to progress, and which risk factors are considered to influence progression.
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.