ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2025
Coronary computed tomography angiography versus guideline-recommended clinical risk assessment for statin allocation in outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The purpose of this study was to compare coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and guideline-recommended clinical risk assessment for the value in statin allocation in outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: For the 7860 eligible outpatients with suspected CAD who underwent CCTA, we evaluate hard atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) stratified by guideline-recommended clinical risk assessment, and CCTA. For intermediate risk patients, we also compared the predictive value of CCTA and CAC. Results: Over a median follow-up period of 3.6 years, a total of 83 (1.1 %) hard ASCVD and 170 (2.2 %) MACCE occurred. The event rate increased with both the intensity of statin recommendation (e.g., hard ASCVD: 1.5 per 1000 person-years [PY] for statin not recommended, 4.1 per 1000 PY for moderate-intensity statin, and 8.9 per 1000 PY for high-intensity statin) and the severity of coronary stenosis (e.g., hard ASCVD: 0.7 per 1000 PY for no plaque, 5.1 per 1000 PY for non-obstructive CAD, and 11.2 per 1000 PY for obstructive CAD). When stratified by CCTA, higher intensity statin recommendation was not a statistically significant independent risk factor, both for hard ASCVD and MACCE. For the predictive value of hard ASCVD in intermediate risk patients, there was no statistically significant difference between CCTA and CAC (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.692 versus 0.702; Conclusions: CCTA played a more important role in statin allocation compared to guideline-recommended clinical risk assessment in outpatients who underwent CCTA.
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.