Discrimination between Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease and Cardiac Syndrome X in Women with Typical Angina and Positive Exercise Test; Utility of Cardiovascular Risk Calculators.

Introduction

Nearly 40% of women with typical angina and a positive exercise tolerance test (ETT) have normal or near normal coronary angiography (CAG) labeled as cardiac syndrome X (CSX).

Objective

We performed this study to evaluate the power of common cardiovascular risk calculators to distinguish patients with CSX from those with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

559 women participated in the study. Three risk scores, including (1) newly pooled cohort equation of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) to predict 10 years risk of first atherosclerotic cardiovascular hard event (ASCVD), (2) Framingham risk score (FRS) for the prediction of 10 years coronary heart disease, and (3) the SCORE tool to estimate 10-year risk of cardiovascular mortality (SCORE), were applied.

Results

CAD was diagnosed in 51.5% of the patients. 11.6% of the population had ASCVD < 2.5%, and only 13.8% of these patients had CAD on their CAG. By choosing FRS, 14.4% of patients had FRS < 7.5%, and only 11.3% of these patients had recorded CAD on CAG, while the rest of the patients were diagnosed as CSX. Using the SCORE model, 13.8% of patients had the least value (<0.5%) in whom the prevalence of CAD was 19.9%. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) to discriminate CSX from CAD was calculated for each scoring system, being 0.750 for ASCVD, 0.745 for FRS, and 0.728 for SCORE (p value for all AUROCs < 0.001). The Hosmer⁻Lemeshow chi squares (df, p value) for calibration were 8.787 (8, 0.361), 11.125 (8, 0.195), and 10.618 (8, 0.224) for ASCVD, FRS, and SCORE, respectively.

Conclusions

Patients who have ASCVD < 2.5% or FRS < 7.5% may be appropriate cases for noninvasive imaging (Such as coronary CT angiography). CAG is indicated for patients with ASCVD ≥ 7.5% and FRS ≥ 15%, whereas the patients with intermediate risk need comprehensive patient⁻physician shared decision-making.