Search

Background: Despite clinical suspicion, most non-invasive ischemia tests for coronary artery disease (CAD) reveal unremarkable results. Patients with a coronary artery calcium score (CACS) of zero rarely have an abnormal positron emission tomography (PET) and could be deferred from further testing. However, most patients have some extent of coronary calcification., Objectives: CACS percentiles could be useful to exclude abnormal perfusion in patients with CACS >0, but data from patients with 82 Rb PET are lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic utility of CACS percentiles in comparison to zero calcium and absolute CACS classes., Methods: Consecutive patients with suspected CAD ( n  = 1,792) referred for 82 Rb PET were included and analyzed for abnormal PET (SSS ≥4) and relevant ischemia (>10% myocardium). Test characteristics were calculated., Results: The mean age was 65 ± 11 years, 43% were female, and typical angina was reported in 21%. Abnormal PET/relevant ischemia (>10%) were observed in 19.8%/9.3%. Overall, the sensitivity/negative predictive value (NPV) of a <25th percentile CACS to rule out abnormal PET and relevant ischemia were 93.0%/95.7% and 98.2%/99.5%, respectively. The sensitivity/NPV of CACS 1-9 to rule out abnormal PET and relevant ischemia were 96.0%/91.8% and 97.6%/97.6%, respectively. Except for patients <50 years old, sensitivity for abnormal PET was >90.9% in all age groups., Conclusion: In patients >50 years, the <25th percentile and CACS 1-9 had good test characteristics to rule out abnormal PET and relevant ischemia (>10%). They could be used to extend the scope of application of CACS 0 by 8%-10% to 32%-34% overall of patients who could be deferred from further testing., Competing Interests: CM has received research support from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the KTI, the University Hospital Basel, the University of Basel, Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Beckman Coulter, Idorsia, Novartis, Ortho Diagnostics, Quidel, Roche, Siemens, Singulex, SpinChip, and Sphingotec, as well as speaker honoraria/consulting honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Idorsia, Novartis, Osler, Roche, Sanofi, and SpinChip. MZ is in the Advisory Board, Exploris AG, Switzerland. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Frey, Huré, Leibfarth, Thommen, Amrein, Rumora, Schäfer, Caobelli, Wild, Haaf, Mueller and Zellweger.)

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic potential of MAp19, a regulating component of the lectin pathway of the complement system, in patients with suspected functionally relevant coronary artery disease (fCAD) as well as the determinants of MAp19 levels., Methods: The presence of fCAD was adjudicated using myocardial perfusion imaging with single-photon emission tomography and, where available, coronary angiography. MAp19 levels were measured in participants at rest, at peak stress tests, and two hours after the stress. The study also tracked major cardiovascular events, including non-fatal myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death, over a five-year follow-up period., Results: Among the 1,571 patients analyzed (32.3 % women), fCAD was identified in 462 individuals (29.4 %). MAp19 demonstrated no diagnostic significance, yielding an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.51 (0.47-0.55). Throughout the five-year follow-up, 107 patients (6.8 %) experienced non-fatal myocardial infarctions, 99 (6.3 %) had cardiovascular death, 194 (12.3 %) experienced all cause death and 50 (3.1 %) suffered a stroke. Cox and Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed prognostic value of MAp19 for myocardial infarction, but not for cardiovascular death. Significant increases in the concentration of MAp19 were observed during bicycle (p = 0.001) and combined stress tests (p = 0.001)., Conclusion: MAp19 demonstrated an association with the risk of myocardial infarction. Increases in MAp19 concentration were observed during bicycle and combined stress-tests., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to test the diagnostic and prognostic ability of H-ficolin, an initiator of the lectin pathway of the complement system, for functionally relevant coronary artery disease (fCAD), and explore its determinants., Methods: The presence of fCAD was adjudicated using myocardial perfusion imaging single-photon emission tomography and coronary angiography. H-ficolin levels were measured by a sandwich-type immunoassay at rest, peak stress-test, and 2 h after stress-test. Cardiovascular death and non-fatal myocardial infarction were assessed during 5-year follow-up., Results: Among 1,571 patients (32.3 % women), fCAD was detected in 462 patients (29.4 %). H-ficolin concentration at rest was 18.6 (15.3-21.8) µg/ml in patients with fCAD versus 17.8 (15.4-21.5) µg/ml, p = 0.33, in patients without fCAD, resulting in an AUC of 0.53 (95 %CI 0.48-0.56). During follow-up, 107 patients (6.8 %) had non-fatal myocardial infarction and 99 patients (6.3 %) experienced cardiovascular death. In Cox regression analysis, H-ficolin was not a predictor of events in the overall cohort. Subgroup analysis suggested a potential link between H-ficolin and non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients without fCAD (adjusted HR 1.03, 95 % CI 1.02-1.15, p = 0.005). H-ficolin concentration showed a weak positive correlation with systolic (r = 0.069, p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (r = 0.111, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: H-ficolin concentration did not have diagnostic and/or prognostic value in patients referred for fCAD work-up., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)