Invasive aortic pulse pressure is not superior to cuff pulse pressure in cardiovascular risk prediction.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic pulse pressure (PP) represents the hemodynamic cardiac and cerebral burden more directly than cuff PP. The objective of this study was to investigate whether invasively measured aortic PP confers additional prognostic value beyond cuff PP for cardiovascular events and death. With increasing age, cuff PP progressively underestimates aortic PP. Whether the prognostic association between cuff PP and outcomes is age-dependent remains to be elucidated. METHODS: Cuff PP and invasively measured aortic PP were recorded in 21 908 patients (mean age 63 years, 58% men, 14% with diabetes) with stable angina pectoris undergoing elective coronary angiography during January 2001--December 2012. Multivariate Cox models were used to assess the association with incident myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-index. RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 3.7 years (range 0.1-10.8 years), 422 strokes, 511 myocardial infarctions, and 1530 deaths occurred. Both cuff and aortic PP were associated with stroke, myocardial infarction, and death in crude analyses. However, only cuff PP remained associated with stroke (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg, 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01--1.12)] and myocardial infarction [hazard ratio per 10 mmHg 1.05 (95% CI 1.01--1.11)] in multivariate Cox models. Both cuff and aortic PP lost significance as predictors of death in multivariate models. Age did not modify the prognostic association between cuff PP and stroke, myocardial infarction, and death. CONCLUSION: Invasively measured aortic PP did not add prognostic information about cardiovascular outcomes and death beyond cuff PP in patients with stable angina pectoris.

Risk stratification of patients suspected of coronary artery disease: comparison of five different models.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of five risk models (Diamond-Forrester, the updated Diamond-Forrester, Morise, Duke, and a new model designated COronary Risk SCORE (CORSCORE) in predicting significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chest pain suggestive of stable angina pectoris. METHODS: Retrospective cohort for creation of CORSCORE by means of logistic regression analysis. Prospective cohort for validation of the five risk models using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis, net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Significant CAD was defined as lumen area diameter reduction ≥50% at coronary angiography. All risk models include information on age, sex, and symptoms. In addition the Duke, Morise, and CORSCORE models include information on tobacco use and hypercholesterolemia. Duke and Morise also include information on diabetes. History of myocardial infarction is used by the Duke and CORSCORE models whereas hypertension is included in the Morise and CORSCORE models. The Duke model includes information on electrocardiogram (ECG) changes and the Morise model includes information on family history, body mass index, obesity, and oestrogen status. RESULTS: 4781 retrospective and 633 prospective consecutive patients referred for coronary angiography were included. The area under the ROC for the updated Diamond-Forrester, Duke, and CORSCORE was significantly larger than for the Diamond-Forrester (p≤0.001). The IDI was significantly higher for the Duke as compared to all other models (p≤0.006). CONCLUSION: The Duke, updated Diamond-Forrester, and CORSCORE risk models are most efficient in predicting CAD in a contemporary cohort of patients with symptoms suggestive of angina. The updated Diamond-Forrester may most operational in daily clinical practice since it is calculated from the lowest number of clinical variables.