ArticleJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2024
To Evaluate Efficiency of Various Coronary Artery Disease Risk Scores With Traditional Risk Factors in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography.
Article in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze and compare various cardiovascular disease risk scores in Western Indian patients undergoing Coronary angiogram (CAG). Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, 1213 patients who underwent conventional coronary angiography; clinical risk profile and biochemical investigations were evaluated prior to undergoing CAG. Apart from the demographic information, 10-year absolute risk of having a major cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke) was calculated for each patient using various available Traditional Risk Scores (TRS). The population was divided in low, intermediate and high-risk categories for each of these scores. Results: Traditional cardiovascular risk factors like hypertension (41.8%) and diabetes mellitus-II (26.9%) were the two most prevalent risk factors in our study population. A higher risk value for all these TRS was more likely to be associated with obstructive coronary artery disease (OCAD) on CAG. Patients with high risk (≥20% for 10-year) QRESEARCH (QRISK3) score category had higher number of patients with obstructive CAD (49.6%) as compared to high risk category of risk score for those with high Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score (46.6%) or risk Framingham (FRS CHD) score (29.2%) and risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) score (30.1%) (P < 0.0001). A higher TRS was more likely to be associated with obstructive CAD, with the highest predictability being with QRISK3 (QRISK3 score 60.9%, GRACE score 54.9%, FRS-CHD score 34% and ASCVD score 42.1% respectively; P < 0.0001). A substantial study population (27.4%) cannot be identified using any of these TRS and hence a need of indigenous or modified risk scores is proposed. Conclusion: QRISK3 score was most efficacious for predicting obstructive CAD in our Indian study population on CAG. A higher risk score also correlated with the number of vessels involved on coronary angiogram. A substantial obstructive CAD patient could not be identified using traditional risk scores hence need for an indigenous or modified score.
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.