European heart journal · 2026
Standard clinical and stress electrocardiogram variables to exclude left main and left main-equivalent disease: the MASTER study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
De Carlo Marco, Malanima Marco Andrea, Baglietto Laura, Bazan Lorenzo, Berti Sergio, Calabrò Paolo, Carmisciano Luca, De Caterina Alberto Ranieri, Fabozzo Simona, Fornili Marco, Ghisletti Andrea, Hellou Elias, Lanza Gaetano Antonio, Mancini Nastasia, Massacesi Cristiano, Neglia Danilo, Pastore Maria Concetta, Patti Giuseppe, Tremamunno Saverio, Vizzari Giampiero, Weintraub William S, Lerman Amir, Temporelli Pier Luigi, De Caterina Raffaele
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A simple diagnostic method able to reliably exclude left main (LM) coronary artery disease (CAD) or LMCAD-equivalent would expand implementation of an initial non-invasive strategy in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). This study assessed the diagnostic utility of an approach using clinical and ECG stress testing (EST) variables in excluding LMCAD/LMCAD-equivalent in CCS patients.
METHODS: In a multicentre case-control study, CCS patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography (CAG) after a maximal EST were evaluated. Cases were patients with angiographic ≥ 50% LM stenosis or ≥70% stenosis of both proximal left anterior descending and proximal circumflex arteries, matched with similar patients without them (controls) in a 1:3 ratio. A risk model developed through logistic regression was internally and externally validated.
RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-five cases were matched with 797 controls. The model area under the curve (AUC) was .78. Assuming LMCAD prevalence of 5% and a misclassification cost ratio of 1:100 (ratio of cost of performing CAG in a control to cost of not performing CAG in a case), negative predictive value was 98.2%. Thus, CAG could be safely avoided in 41% of patients, missing one LMCAD/LMCAD-equivalent diagnosis for every 58 CAGs safely spared in patients without them.
CONCLUSIONS: Among CCS patients, LMCAD/LMCAD-equivalent can be excluded with high negative predictive value through a model based on clinical and EST parameters, allowing initial non-invasive management of most patients able to exercise. This approach is potentially useful particularly in communities where access to computed tomography coronary angiography is limited.
METHODS: In a multicentre case-control study, CCS patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography (CAG) after a maximal EST were evaluated. Cases were patients with angiographic ≥ 50% LM stenosis or ≥70% stenosis of both proximal left anterior descending and proximal circumflex arteries, matched with similar patients without them (controls) in a 1:3 ratio. A risk model developed through logistic regression was internally and externally validated.
RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-five cases were matched with 797 controls. The model area under the curve (AUC) was .78. Assuming LMCAD prevalence of 5% and a misclassification cost ratio of 1:100 (ratio of cost of performing CAG in a control to cost of not performing CAG in a case), negative predictive value was 98.2%. Thus, CAG could be safely avoided in 41% of patients, missing one LMCAD/LMCAD-equivalent diagnosis for every 58 CAGs safely spared in patients without them.
CONCLUSIONS: Among CCS patients, LMCAD/LMCAD-equivalent can be excluded with high negative predictive value through a model based on clinical and EST parameters, allowing initial non-invasive management of most patients able to exercise. This approach is potentially useful particularly in communities where access to computed tomography coronary angiography is limited.