STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
Objectives
To determine whether presentation, risk assessment, testing choices, and results differ by sex in stable symptomatic outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD).
Background
Although established CAD presentations differ by sex, little is known about stable, suspected CAD.
Methods
Characteristics of 10,003 men and women in the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial were compared using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Sex differences in test selection and predictors of test positivity were examined using logistic regression.
Results
Women were older (62.4 years vs. 59.0) and more likely to be hypertensive (66.6% vs. 63.2%), dyslipidemic (68.9% vs. 66.3%), and to have a family history of premature CAD (34.6% vs. 29.3) (all p-values<0.005). Women were less likely to smoke (45.6% vs. 57.0%; p<0.001), while diabetes prevalence was similar (21.8% vs. 21.0%; p=0.30). Chest pain was the primary symptom in 73.2% of women vs. 72.3% of men (p=0.30) and was characterized as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness” in 52.5% of women vs. 46.2% of men (p<0.001). Compared to men, all risk scores characterized women as lower risk, and providers were more likely to characterize women as having low (<30%) pre-test probability for CAD (40.7% vs. 34.1%; p<0.001). Compared with men, women were more often referred to imaging tests (adjusted OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.01–1.44) than non-imaging tests. Women were less likely to have a positive test (9.7% vs. 15.1%; p<0.001). Although univariate predictors of test positivity were similar, in multivariable models, age, BMI, and Framingham risk score were predictive of a positive test in women, while Framingham and Diamond and Forrester risk scores were predictive in men.
Conclusion
Patient sex influences the entire diagnostic pathway for possible CAD, from baseline risk factors and presentation to noninvasive test outcomes. These differences highlight the need for sex-specific approaches to CAD evaluation.
Keywords: CAD, sex, angina, risk factors
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and disability in women in the US, yet remains a diagnostic challenge (1). Most studies reporting sex differences in presenting symptoms and risk factor burden have examined populations with acute chest pain, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), or revascularization, and do not provide guidance regarding differences in the much more common presentation of stable chest pain (2–19). Further, few studies have examined the impact of such differences on provider decisions, including assessment of the likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and selection of noninvasive testing (1,5,20). Thus, a contemporary assessment of sex differences in the presentation and evaluation of stable outpatients without known heart disease is needed to better guide the management of women with suspected CAD.
The Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01174550), a recently completed 10,003-patient randomized trial of evaluation strategies in symptomatic, non-acute patients with suspected CAD, enrolled over 5200 women, making it an ideal setting in which to explore these questions (21,22). Accordingly, we used the PROMISE dataset to compare the demographics, risk factor profiles, clinical presentation, risk estimates, choice of functional test, and test results by sex in a contemporary population of stable symptomatic outpatients with suspected CAD. We hypothesized that demographics, symptoms, and risk factor burden would differ by sex, which would in turn influence provider risk estimates, subsequent diagnostic evaluation choices, and noninvasive test results.
METHODS
Study Population
Symptomatic outpatients without a previous history of CAD were recruited between July 2010 and September 2013 at 193 sites in North America participating in the PROMISE trial. The methods of PROMISE have been described previously (22). In brief, after providing written informed consent, 10,003 patients (5270 women and 4733 men) were randomized to either functional testing (exercise electrocardiogram [ECG], stress nuclear imaging, or stress echocardiogram) or anatomical testing with ≥64-slice multidetector coronary computed tomographic angiography. Before randomization, the local clinical team specified the functional test that the patient would receive if randomized to that arm.
Data Collection and Variables
Baseline patient data on demographics, risk factor profiles, ECG findings, symptoms, and CAD risk estimates were collected on all patients including the patient’s primary presenting symptom (chest pain, dyspnea, back pain, fatigue, etc.) and if chest pain, the provider’s assessment of chest pain typicality. Data on five risk assessment scores—Framingham (2008) (23), ASCVD (2013) (24), Diamond and Forrester (1979) (25), modified Diamond and Forrester (2011) (26), and combined Diamond-Forrester and Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) (2012) (27)— were calculated for the entire population. In calculating Framingham and ASCVD scores, the single imputation method was performed to replace missing cholesterol values (45% missing) using the observed mean cholesterol value in five clinically relevant subgroups. HDL data (45% missing) were also imputed with separate mean HDL values for women and men. Test positivity was recorded for the first noninvasive test performed on patients with interpretable results. Positivity was defined as ≥70% epicardial stenosis or ≥50% left main stenosis on coronary computed tomographic angiography. An exercise ECG was positive if ST segment changes consistent with ischemia during stress were detected or if the test was terminated early (<3 minutes) due to reproduction of symptoms, arrhythmia, and/or hypotension. Stress nuclear and stress echocardiography tests were positive if there was inducible ischemia in at least one coronary territory (anterior, inferior, or lateral) or if an exercise stress test was terminated early (<3 minutes) due to reproduction of symptoms, arrhythmia, and/or hypotension. The results of tests were site-reported, in keeping with the pragmatic nature of the trial. However, in an a priori effort to standardize test report quality, every imaging report was reviewed by a cardiology faculty or senior fellow physician who underwent training before the start of the trial on the use of a prospectively designed protocol to deal with ambiguous test results. In this manner, the interpretation of ambiguous test reports was standardized for each testing modality and harmonized across imaging modalities.
Statistical Analysis
Demographics, risk factor profiles, ECG findings, baseline medications, clinical characteristics at presentation, prespecified choice of functional test, and provider’s estimate of risk were compared by sex using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables. Additionally, these baseline characteristics were compared by test results within each sex.
Logistic regression models were used to compare test selection in men versus women. To account for heterogeneity between women and men, multivariable models adjusted for primary symptom type, characterization of chest pain, age, body mass index (BMI), site (random effects), and risk factors (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease, sedentary lifestyle, depression, family history of premature CAD, and dyslipidemia). Differences in the likelihood of the provider selecting imaging tests instead of non-imaging tests are expressed as adjusted odds ratios with associated 95% confidence intervals. Similar investigations were performed to assess differences in the likelihood of the provider selecting stress nuclear testing instead of stress echocardiography.
Spearman’s rank correlation was used to assess the relationships between provider estimate and calculated likelihood of obstructive disease using Diamond and Forrester (2011) (26). Fisher’s Z-transformation was used to compare the correlations between women and men.
Separate multivariable logistic regression models were constructed for men and women to determine the key predictors of diagnostic test positivity. Each model considered the following clinically relevant candidate predictors: age, race, BMI, risk factors (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, family history of premature CAD, depression, sedentary lifestyle, cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease, history of heart failure, CAD equivalent), risk scores (Framingham [2008] [23], ASCVD [2013] [24], Diamond and Forrester [1979] [25], modified Diamond and Forrester [2011] [26], and combined Diamond-Forrester and CASS [2012] [27]), primary presenting symptom, and the provider’s characterization of chest pain. For women and men, stepwise model selection was employed to identify the subset of predictors that contained the highest amount of predictive information within the constraints of our predetermined model entry and exit criteria (entry: p<0.1, exit: p≥0.2). Age, diabetes, and the provider’s characterization of chest pain were assumed to be key predictors for men and women; thus, they were forced into each model. The Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess each model’s calibration and the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess each model’s discriminatory capacity.
All statistical analyses were conducted with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), with α = 0.05.
RESULTS
Among all trial patients, mean ages (range) were 59 (45–90) years for men and 62 (50–92) years for women (Table 1). Because the inclusion criteria specified a minimum age for women of 50 years versus 45 years for men, we looked only at patients over 50 years of age and found that women were still older on average. The prevalence of racial or ethnic minorities was similar between the sexes.
Table 1.
Patient Characteristics and Test Positivity
| Variable | Men (N = 4733) |
Women (N = 5270) |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||
| Age, yrs | |||
| All patients | 59.0 ± 8.4 | 62.4 ± 7.9 | <0.001 |
| Patients >50 yrs | 61.0 ± 7.4 | 62.4 ± 7.9 | <0.001 |
| Racial or ethnic minority | 1041 (22.1%) | 1207 (23.1%) | 0.270 |
| Physical exams | |||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 30.4 ± 5.4 | 30.6 ± 6.7 | 0.223 |
| Overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) | 4051 (86.3%) | 4166 (79.9%) | <0.001 |
| Risk factors | |||
| Hypertension | 2992 (63.2%) | 3509 (66.6%) | <0.001 |
| Diabetes | 993 (21.0%) | 1151 (21.8%) | 0.298 |
| Dyslipidemia | 3135 (66.3%) | 3632 (68.9%) | 0.004 |
| Cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease | 223 (4.7%) | 329 (6.2%) | <0.001 |
| Family history of premature CAD | 1384 (29.3%) | 1818 (34.6%) | <0.001 |
| History of depression | 692 (14.6%) | 1366 (25.9%) | <0.001 |
| Metabolic syndrome | 1807 (38.2%) | 1965 (37.3%) | 0.358 |
| Current or former smoker | 2699 (57.0%) | 2405 (45.6%) | <0.001 |
| Sedentary | 2049 (43.4%) | 2812 (53.5%) | <0.001 |
| Primary presenting symptoms | |||
| Chest pain* | 3416 (72.3%) | 3856 (73.2%) | 0.304 |
| Chest pain characterization† | |||
| Aching/dull | 928 (27.2%) | 911 (23.6%) | <0.001 |
| Burning/pins and needles | 351 (10.3%) | 319 (8.3%) | 0.003 |
| Crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness | 1577 (46.2%) | 2023 (52.5%) | <0.001 |
| Other | 1063 (31.1%) | 1136 (29.5%) | 0.125 |
| Arm or shoulder pain | 132 (2.8%) | 125 (2.4%) | 0.185 |
| Back pain | 30 (0.6%) | 54 (1.0%) | 0.033 |
| Fatigue/weakness | 164 (3.5%) | 113 (2.1%) | <0.001 |
| Neck or jaw pain | 33 (0.7%) | 76 (1.4%) | <0.001 |
| Shortness of breath/dyspnea | 706 (14.9%) | 784 (14.9%) | 0.937 |
| Palpitations | 94 (2.0%) | 142 (2.7%) | 0.020 |
| Other‡ | 152 (3.2%) | 119 (2.3%) | 0.003 |
|
Physician characterization of typicality of chest pain |
|||
| Typical (definite angina) | 576 (12.2%) | 590 (11.2%) | 0.129 |
| Atypical (possible angina) | 3697 (78.1%) | 4076 (77.3%) | 0.357 |
| Non-anginal | 460 (9.7%) | 604 (11.5%) | 0.005 |
| Medication use at presentation | |||
| Beta blockers | 990 (22.2%) | 1409 (27.5%) | <0.001 |
| ACE inhibitor or ARB | 2022 (45.4%) | 2172 (42.4%) | 0.003 |
| Statin | 2097 (47.1%) | 2292 (44.8%) | 0.021 |
| Aspirin | 2162 (48.6%) | 2118 (41.4%) | <0.001 |
| Diuretic | 966 (21.7%) | 1688 (33.0%) | <0.001 |
| ECG findings | |||
| ECG Q waves | 195 (4.2%) | 259 (5.0%) | 0.056 |
| ECG findings that could interfere with exercise test interpretation |
235 (5.0%) | 351 (6.7%) | <0.001 |
| LBBB | 36 (15.3%) | 105 (29.9%) | |
| ST depression | 45 (19.1%) | 80 (22.8%) | |
| LVH with repolarization | 36 (15.3%) | 43 (12.3%) | |
| Other | 120 (51.1%) | 133 (37.9%) | |
| Test results§ | |||
| Overall test positivity | 640 (15.1%) | 458 (9.7%) | <0.001 |
Data are mean ± SD or n (%).
”Chest pain – substernal or left anterior” or “Chest pain – other” are selected as primary symptoms. Multiple characterizations are possible.
Only applicable when “Chest pain –substernal or left anterior” or “Chest pain – other” are selected as primary symptoms. Multiple choices possible.
Includes diaphoresis/sweating, dizziness/lightheaded, epigastric/abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, syncope, and other.
Percentages calculated out of 8966 patients (4246 men and 4720 women).
SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; ECG, electrocardiogram; LBBB, left bundle branch block; LVH, left ventricular hypertrophy.
Women were more likely than men to have a history of hypertension, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease, family history of premature CAD, depression, and a sedentary lifestyle (Table 1). Men were more likely than women to smoke and be overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2). The prevalence of diabetes was similar in both men and women.
The most common primary presenting symptom in both sexes was chest pain reported by 73.2% of women vs. 72.3% of men (p=0.30) (Table 1). Men were more likely than women to characterize their chest pain as “aching/dull” and “burning/pins and needles.” Women were more likely than men to characterize their pain as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness.” Women were more likely than men to have back pain, neck or jaw pain, and palpitations as the primary presenting symptoms, whereas men were more likely to have fatigue/weakness.
The use of cardiovascular medications at baseline was common in both sexes (Table 1). Women were more likely than men to be taking beta blockers and diuretics; men were more likely than women to be taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, statins, and aspirin. Women tended to have more abnormal ECG findings than men overall and were more likely to have ECG findings that the site physician felt could interfere with exercise stress test interpretation.
The risk of events and pretest likelihood for coronary disease was lower for women in each of the five global risk scores: Framingham (2008) (23), ASCVD (2013) (24), Diamond and Forrester (1979) (25), modified Diamond and Forrester (2011) (26), and combined Diamond-Forrester and CASS (2012) (27) (Table 2). Compared to men, a higher percentage of women were characterized by their providers as having low risk (<30%) pre-test probability for obstructive CAD, while a higher percentage of men were characterized as having high risk (>70%). The correlations between provider estimation of disease and Diamond and Forrester (2011) (26) score were weak and not significantly different in women and men (r=0.313 vs. r=0.303, respectively; p=0.227).
Table 2.
Risk Scores and Physician Assessment of CAD Likelihood
| Variable | Men (N = 4733) |
Women (N = 5270) |
P- value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk scores | |||
| Framingham risk score (2008) | <0.001 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 28.9 ± 16.4 | 15.0 ± 9.9 | |
| Median (IQR) | 25.0 (16.1, 38.0) |
12.3 (8.1, 18.8) |
|
| Min, Max | 2.4, 99.6 | 1.6, 82.9 | |
| ASCVD pooled cohort risk prediction (2013) | <0.001 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 17.1 ± 11.6 | 12.5 ± 11.5 | |
| Median (IQR) | 14.1 (8.5, 22.6) | 8.7 (4.7, 16.2) | |
| Min, Max | 0.9, 97.8 | 0.6, 88.9 | |
| Diamond and Forrester (1979) | <0.001 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 60.6 ± 17.4 | 45.9 ± 19.9 | |
| Median (IQR) | 58.9 (58.9, 67.1) |
54.4 (32.4, 54.4) |
|
| Min, Max | 14.1, 94.3 | 8.4, 90.6 | |
| Diamond and Forrester (2011) | <0.001 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 54.5 ± 13.6 | 28.3 ± 12.4 | |
| Median (IQR) | 48.9 (48.9, 59.4) |
27.7 (20.0, 27.7) |
|
| Min, Max | 24.8, 92.5 | 11.7, 76.3 | |
| Combined Diamond-Forrester and CASS (2012) |
<0.001 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 64.7 ± 17.8 | 43.0 ± 19.0 | |
| Median (IQR) | 65.0 (65.0, 72.0) |
51.0 (31.0, 51.0) |
|
| Min, Max | 13.0, 94.0 | 7.0, 86.0 | |
| Physician assessment of likelihood of epicardial stenosis, n (%)* |
|||
| Very low and Low (<30%) | 1613 (34.1%) | 2142 (40.7%) | <0.001 |
| Intermediate (31–70%) | 2815 (59.6%) | 2935 (55.8%) | <0.001 |
| High and Very high (>70%) | 299 (6.3%) | 182 (3.5%) | <0.001 |
Provider’s assessment of the likelihood that subject has significant epicardial coronary stenosis or left main stenosis. Significant refers to ≥ 70% epicardial coronary stenosis or ≥ 50% left main stenosis.
CAD, coronary artery disease; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CASS, Coronary Artery Surgery Study.
Test Selection
Providers were asked to prespecify a functional test for all patients prior to trial enrollment. A higher percentage of women were selected to receive nuclear stress testing compared to men. Similarly, a higher percentage of men were selected to receive exercise ECG compared to women (Figure 1). Even after adjustment for baseline age, BMI, site, risk factors, and presenting characteristics, clinicians were 21% more likely to select imaging stress tests (stress echocardiography or stress nuclear) for women compared to men instead of non-imaging stress tests (exercise ECG) (Table 3a). Among only those patients for whom an imaging stress test was selected, clinicians were 17% more likely to select stress nuclear for women compared to men instead of stress echocardiography (Table 3b).
Figure 1. Provider’s Choice of Prespecified Functional Test.
Prior to randomization, providers were asked to specify the functional test they would use if the patient were to be randomized to the functional testing arm. We compared the proportion of men and women specified to each test. P-values for comparison by sex were calculated using chi-square tests.
Table 3.
| a: Association Between Sex and Prespecified Choice of Functional Test Category (Imaging vs. Non-Imaging) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Women vs. Men* | ||
| Model† | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | P-value |
| Unadjusted‡ | ||
| Imaging | 1.689 (1.478–1.930) | <0.001 |
| Adjusted§ | ||
| Imaging | 1.205 (1.006–1.443) | 0.043 |
| b: Association Between Sex and Prespecified Choice of Functional Test for Patients in Whom an Imaging Test Was Selected (Stress Nuclear vs. Stress Echocardiography) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Women vs. Men* | ||
| Model† | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | P-value |
| Unadjusted‡ | ||
| Stress Nuclear | 1.173 (1.066–1.290) | 0.001 |
| Adjusted§ | ||
| Stress Nuclear | 1.168 (1.023–1.333) | 0.022 |
Men are reference group.
10003 subjects included in the unadjusted logistic regression model. Reference test category is non-imaging test.
Unadjusted model contains sex.
Adjusted model contains sex; testing site; chest pain vs. other as primary symptoms; site’s characterization of chest pain as typical, atypical or non-anginal; age; BMI; and risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease, sedentary lifestyle, depression, family history of premature CAD, dyslipidemia.
Men are reference group.
9017 subjects included in the binary logistic regression model (subjects prespecified to exercise ECG omitted). Reference test category is stress echocardiography.
Unadjusted model contains sex.
Adjusted model contains sex; testing site; chest pain vs. other as primary symptoms; site’s characterization of chest pain as typical, atypical or non-anginal; age; BMI; and risk factors including diabetes, hypertension, cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease, sedentary lifestyle, depression, family history of premature CAD and dyslipidemia.
Test Results
Among the 8966 patients (4720 women, 4246 men) who had interpretable noninvasive tests, 15.1% of men had positive test results compared to 9.7% of women (Table 1; Figure 2). In univariate analyses, age and risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes were predictive of positive tests in both men and women (Table 4). While chest pain as a presenting characteristic was not associated with test positivity in either sex, characterization as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness” was associated with test positivity in women whereas “burning/pins and needles” was predictive in men. All risk scores were highly predictive of a positive test in both men and women.
Figure 2. Test Positivity Rates by Sex and Test Type.
Rate of positive test results by sex and by modality for the first noninvasive test performed on patients with interpretable results. Positivity was evaluated by the criteria listed in the methods section.
Table 4.
Association Between Overall Test Positivity and Presentation Characteristics in Women and Men
| Variable | Men (N = 4246) |
Women (N = 4720) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative (n = 3606) |
Positive (n = 640) |
P- value |
Negative (n = 4262) |
Positive (n = 458) |
P-value | |
| Demographics | ||||||
| Age, yrs | ||||||
| All patients | 58.4 ± 8.2 | 61.8 ± 8.6 | <0.001 | 62.2 ± 7.7 | 64.4 ± 8.0 | <0.001 |
| Patients >50 yrs |
2995 (83.1%) |
583 (91.1%) | <0.001 | 4261 (>99.9%) |
458 (100%) |
>0.999 |
| Racial or ethnic minority | 808 (22.6%) | 105 (16.5%) | <0.001 | 962 (22.7%) | 90 (19.8%) | 0.154 |
| Physical exams | ||||||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 30.5 ± 5.4 | 30.4 ± 5.5 | 0.978 | 30.3 ± 6.4 | 31.5 ± 7.3 | 0.004 |
| Overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) |
3096 (86.6%) | 541 (85.2%) | 0.350 | 3367 (79.7%) |
370 (81.1%) |
0.481 |
| Risk factors | ||||||
| Hypertension |
2240 (62.1%) |
433 (67.7%) | 0.008 |
2804 (65.8%) |
333 (72.7%) |
0.003 |
| Diabetes | 717 (19.9%) | 166 (25.9%) | <0.001 | 902 (21.2%) |
123 (26.9%) |
0.005 |
| Dyslipidemia | 2376 (65.9%) | 436 (68.1%) | 0.271 | 2927 (68.7%) |
331 (72.3%) |
0.114 |
| Cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease |
159 (4.4%) | 38 (5.9%) | 0.089 | 249 (5.8%) | 38 (8.3%) | 0.037 |
| Family history of premature CAD |
1052 (29.3%) | 185 (29.0%) | 0.892 | 1442 (34.0%) |
160 (35.0%) |
0.650 |
| History of depression | 534 (14.8%) | 91 (14.2%) | 0.698 | 1105 (25.9%) |
121 (26.4%) |
0.822 |
| Metabolic syndrome | 1365 (37.9%) | 261 (40.8%) | 0.160 |
1553 (36.4%) |
208 (45.4%) |
<0.001 |
| Current or former smoker |
2022 (56.1%) |
398 (62.2%) | 0.004 | 1940 (45.5%) |
222 (48.5%) |
0.230 |
| Sedentary | 1553 (43.1%) | 300 (46.9%) | 0.070 | 2243 (52.6%) |
262 (57.2%) |
0.057 |
|
Primary presenting symptoms |
||||||
| Chest pain* | 2617 (72.7%) | 450 (70.3%) | 0.219 | 3113 (73.1%) |
342 (74.7%) |
0.458 |
| Chest pain characterization† |
||||||
| Aching/dull | 726 (27.7%) | 121 (26.9%) | 0.709 | 734 (23.6%) | 74 (21.6%) | 0.421 |
| Burning/pins and needles | 261 (10.0%) | 61 (13.6%) | 0.022 | 261 (8.4%) | 34 (9.9%) | 0.328 |
| Crushing/pressure/squeez ing/ tightness |
1213 (46.4%) | 200 (44.4%) | 0.454 |
1632 (52.4%) |
200 (58.5%) |
0.033 |
| Other | 826 (31.6%) | 125 (27.8%) | 0.109 | 921 (29.6%) | 91 (26.6%) | 0.251 |
| Shortness of breath/dyspnea |
538 (14.9%) | 101 (15.8%) | 0.584 | 634 (14.9%) | 73 (15.9%) | 0.546 |
| Other‡ | 446 (12.4%) | 89 (13.9%) | 0.286 | 514 (12.1%) | 43 (9.4%) | 0.092 |
|
Physician characterization of typicality of chest pain |
||||||
| Typical (definite angina) | 381 (10.6%) | 120 (18.8%) | <0.001 | 475 (11.1%) | 51 (11.1%) | 0.995 |
| Atypical (possible angina) |
2848 (79.0%) |
469 (73.3%) | <0.001 | 3312 (77.7%) |
359 (78.4%) |
0.742 |
| Non-anginal | 377 (10.5%) | 51 (8.0%) | <0.001 | 475 (11.1%) | 48 (10.5%) | 0.667 |
| Assessment of risk | ||||||
| Framingham risk score (2008) |
<.001 | <.001 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 27.7 ± 15.8 | 34.2 ± 18.0 | 14.7 ± 9.6 |
18.0 ± 11.2 |
||
| Median (IQR) |
24.0 (15.6, 36.0) |
31.1 (20.3, 44.6) |
12.0 (8.0, 18.5) |
14.7 (10.1, 23.9) |
||
| Min, Max | 3.8, 97.0 | 2.4, 99.6 | 1.6, 78.4 | 2.9, 62.6 | ||
| ASCVD pooled cohort risk prediction (2013) |
<.001 | <.001 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 16.2 ± 10.9 | 21.1 ± 13.3 | 12.2 ± 11.2 |
15.8 ± 12.6 |
||
| Median (IQR) |
13.4 (8.1, 21.4) |
17.8 (10.9, 28.2) |
8.5 (4.6, 15.5) |
2.3 (6.3, 1.9) |
||
| Min, Max | 1.2, 75.0 | 0.9, 97.8 | 0.6, 82.0 | 1.1, 76.5 | ||
| Diamond and Forrester (1979) |
<.001 | 0.003 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 59.4 ± 17.3 | 65.2 ± 17.7 | 45.9 ± 19.8 |
48.3 ± 19.3 |
||
| Median (IQR) |
58.9 (58.9, 67.1) |
67.1 (58.9, 67.1) |
54.4 (32.4, 54.4) |
54.4 (32.4, 54.4) |
||
| Min, Max | 14.1, 94.3 | 14.1, 94.3 | 8.4, 90.6 | 8.4, 90.6 | ||
| Diamond and Forrester (2011) |
<.001 | <.001 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 53.4 ± 13.2 | 59.5 ± 14.1 | 28.2 ± 12.2 |
30.0 ± 12.8 |
||
| Median (IQR) |
48.9 (48.9, 59.4) |
59.4 (48.9, 69.2) |
27.7 (20.0, 27.7) |
27.7 (20.0, 37.0) |
||
| Min, Max | 24.8, 92.5 | 24.8, 92.5 | 11.7, 76.3 | 11.7, 76.3 | ||
| Combined Diamond- Forrester and CASS (2012) |
<.001 | 0.003 | ||||
| Mean ± SD | 63.6 ± 17.9 | 69.0 ± 17.5 | 43.0 ± 18.9 |
45.2 ± 18.6 |
||
| Median (IQR) |
65.0 (65.0, 72.0) |
72.0 (65.0, 72.0) |
51.0 (31.0, 51.0) |
51.0 (31.0, 51.0) |
||
| Min, Max | 13.0, 94.0 | 13.0, 94.0 | 7.0, 86.0 | 7.0, 86.0 | ||
|
Physician assessment of likelihood of epicardial stenosis, n (%)§ |
||||||
| Very low and Low (<30%) |
1303 (36.2%) |
168 (26.3%) | <0.001 |
1763 (41.4%) |
163 (35.7%) |
0.019 |
| Intermediate (31–70%) | 2122 (58.9%) | 385 (60.3%) | 0.488 | 2370 (55.7%) |
257 (56.4%) |
0.783 |
| High and Very high (>70%) |
179 (5.0%) | 85 (13.3%) | <0.001 | 123 (2.9%) | 36 (7.9%) | <0.001 |
Significant results in bold.
”Chest pain – substernal or left anterior” or “Chest pain – other” are selected as primary symptoms. Multiple characterizations are possible.
Only applicable when “Chest pain –substernal or left anterior” or “Chest pain – other” are selected as primary symptoms. Multiple choices possible.
Includes diaphoresis/sweating, dizziness/lightheaded, epigastric/abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, syncope, arm or shoulder pain, back pain, fatigue/weakness, neck or jaw pain, palpitations, and other.
Provider’s assessment of the likelihood that subject has significant epicardial coronary stenosis or left main stenosis. Significant refers to ≥ 70% epicardial coronary stenosis or ≥ 50% left main stenosis.
BMI, body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CASS, Coronary Artery Surgery Study.
Among the set of candidate predictors of test positivity, those that best predicted a positive test in a multivariable analysis differed in men and women (Table 5). Age, diabetes, and chest pain typicality were assumed to be key predictors of test positivity in women and men; thus, they were forced into each model. In women, only BMI and the Framingham risk score (2008) (23) provided additional predictive information within the constraints of our model selection procedure, yielding a final model with an AUC of 0.61. In men, only Diamond and Forrester (2011) (26) and the Framingham risk score (2008) (23) provided additional predictive information yielding a final model with an AUC of 0.65.
Table 5.
Multivariable Predictors of Test Positivity by Sex
| Models of Test Positivity* Odds Ratio (95% CI) |
||
|---|---|---|
| Important Predictors | Men‡ | Women† |
| Age | 1.01 (0.98–1.04) | 1.03 (1.02–1.04) |
| Diabetes | 1.10 (0.87–1.39) | 0.92 (0.70–1.22) |
| Chest pain characterization (reference: non-cardiac) |
||
| Atypical | 0.88 (0.51–1.49) | 1.07 (0.77–1.47) |
| Typical | 0.86 (0.26–2.89) | 0.95 (0.62–1.45) |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | -- | 1.03 (1.01–1.04) |
| Diamond-Forrester (2011) | 1.02 (1.00–1.05) | -- |
| Framingham risk score (2008) |
1.01 (1.00–1.02) | 1.02 (1.01–1.03) |
| History of heart failure | 0.62 (0.36–1.05) | -- |
| Sedentary lifestyle | 1.17 (0.98–1.39) | -- |
Final models for women and men selected using stepwise selection (entry criterion: p-value < 0.1; exit criterion: p-value > 0.2) from the following candidate predictors: age, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking (ever, never), family history of premature coronary artery disease (CAD), depression, sedentary lifestyle, cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease, history of heart failure, CAD equivalent, Framingham risk score (2008), ASCVD risk prediction, Diamond-Forrester, Combined Diamond-Forrester and Coronary Artery Surgery Study, Diamond-Forrester (2011), presenting symptom, and chest pain characterization. Age, diabetes, and chest pain characterization forced into each model.
The final model for women was well calibrated (Hosmer–Lemeshow Goodness of Fit p-value: 0.587) and had modest discriminatory capacity (AUC 0.61 [95% CI 0.–0.64]).
The final model for men was well calibrated (Hosmer–Lemeshow Goodness of Fit p-value:0.450) and had modest discriminatory capacity (AUC 0.65 [95% CI 0.63–0.67]).
DISCUSSION
In this multicenter study of a large contemporary population of predominantly low- to intermediate-risk, stable outpatients with symptoms suggestive of CAD, women and men differed substantially in their clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluation, and noninvasive testing results. Women had a higher prevalence of traditional cardiac risk factors but were more likely to be characterized as low risk by providers and existing risk scores. Additionally, women were more likely to be referred for imaging stress tests compared to men, particularly nuclear stress testing, but less likely to have a positive test. Finally, predictors of test positivity differed between the sexes. To our knowledge this is the largest contemporary description of sex-based differences in presentation, evaluation, and noninvasive testing results in a large, stable outpatient population being evaluated for symptoms of suspected CAD.
A number of previous studies have compared differences in demographics, risk factor burden, and symptom profile between men and women (2,4–12,28); however, most of these examined patients with an existing definite diagnosis of CAD, established by the diagnosis of ACS or the need for revascularization. While such CAD populations are germane, the need for evaluation of stable chest pain or other symptoms suggestive of CAD is substantially more common, and establishing a diagnosis is arguably more difficult in this outpatient population. There have been only a few studies that examined sex differences in patients undergoing evaluation for CAD, and they are several decades old and largely represent academic centers (20,28). Therefore, delineating the differences between men and women in this large contemporary population evaluated at community centers is highly relevant to informing modern clinical care.
Similar to previous studies that examined patients with ACS (2,3) and studies with stable chest pain populations (20,28), we found that women had a higher prevalence of all traditional risk factors except diabetes and smoking. In contrast to previous ACS studies, which found that women had a higher prevalence of diabetes than men, we found that the prevalence of diabetes was similar among men and women (2–4,8,10,11,13). Of note, we also found that women had a greater burden of “non-traditional” risk factors, or those not included in the Framingham risk score (2008) (23), such as depression, sedentary lifestyle, and family history of premature CAD (23,29).
In our study, chest pain was the most commonly exhibited symptom for both women and men, although its description differed, with women being significantly more likely to describe their pain as “crushing, pressure, squeezing, or tightness.” Although previous studies have suggested that women are more likely to present with atypical symptoms than men (5,6,7,10,14), our study demonstrated that men and women were equally likely to have atypical symptoms. Women were more likely to present with back pain, neck/jaw pain, and palpitations in accordance with earlier studies of ACS patients, while men were more likely to present with fatigue/weakness, which is in contrast to previous investigations (15–19).
Few studies have examined sex differences in risk scores in a stable outpatient population with suspected CAD (26,30). Our study found that all five versions of the major risk scores we examined characterized women as being at lower risk for events or obstructive CAD compared to men, even though all included sex as a modifier. In the American Heart Association’s 2015 update of heart disease and stroke statistics, total coronary heart disease prevalence was reported to be lower in US women ≥20 years of age (5.0%) compared to men (7.6%) (31). Thus, these risk characterizations may realistically represent relative CAD rates and events in women versus men, a finding that is supported by the lower rate of test positivity in women in our population. Optimizing risk models to ensure that they adequately account for women’s larger risk factor burden yet lower reported prevalence of disease is critical to optimal management of patients with suspected CAD.
In parallel with the differences in the calculated estimates of long-term risk for cardiovascular events (Framingham [23], ASCVD [24]), we found that both Diamond and Forrester calculated scores (26) and providers’ subjective characterizations identified women as having a lower likelihood of obstructive CAD than men. These data are similar to other studies (5). The relationships between calculated CAD likelihood by Diamond and Forrester and providers’ estimates were similar in men and women (data not shown), suggesting that providers’ subjective assessments of risk did not differ markedly by sex. Additionally, we found no sex differences in the providers’ characterization of typical or atypical chest pain, although other investigators have reported that providers less frequently considered chest pain to be typical in women with low to moderate risk of ACS; this finding has been used to justify providers’ lower estimation of risk and less frequent test referral (5).
Among our study subjects, all of whom had a requirement for noninvasive testing, clinicians more often selected imaging stress tests in women compared to men as the functional test of choice rather than non-imaging stress tests. This preference could reflect the higher likelihood in women than men to have false positive stress ECGs (1). Additionally, among those selected for stress testing with imaging, women were more likely than men to be assigned to stress nuclear over stress echocardiography even after adjustment. Although little direct data are available to guide this choice, nuclear testing may be more sensitive for single-vessel coronary disease which is more commonly seen in women, but women may be more sensitive to ionizing radiation. Published meta-analyses suggest that the diagnostic accuracy of stress echocardiography does not differ by sex and prognostic value, while stress nuclear studies may be less accurate in women than men (32–34).
Overall, women in our cohort were less likely to have a positive diagnostic test than men, consistent with the lower risk assigned to them by both risk scores and providers. A large number of characteristics were associated with a positive test, many of which were similar in men and women. However, few remained associated in multivariable analysis, and the ability to predict a positive test was limited in both men and women with only modest AUCs. Finally, the characteristics that predicted a positive test in women differed from those in men, suggesting that different relationships between risk factor burden and the subsequent clinical pathway may be present in women and in men.
The PROMISE trial is one of the largest contemporary, prospectively studied cohorts of symptomatic men and women without known heart disease, and as such, it provides a unique opportunity to study sex differences in this population. The diversity of expertise and settings among 193 PROMISE sites and the broad enrollment criteria make our results highly generalizable to real-world settings. Despite these strengths, there are several issues to consider when interpreting our results. We focused on the initial presentation, evaluation, referral decision making, and test results for stable outpatients with chest pain or other symptoms suggestive of CAD, but PROMISE inclusion criteria required a need for noninvasive testing in all patients; thus, our data do not address possible differences in referral patterns for such testing, as those patients who physicians chose not to test or to send directly to invasive catheterization were specifically excluded. However, our patient population’s age, symptoms, and risk factor burden are such that all had a Class I indication for noninvasive testing. Since we did not have high-sensitivity C-reactive protein data, we were unable to calculate a Reynolds Risk Score, which has been specifically designed for use in women (35). The selection process for the multivariable models assessing the association of presentation characteristics with noninvasive test positivity are exploratory in nature and have not been validated for use on external datasets.
Conclusion
There are significant sex differences in the presentation and evaluation of symptomatic stable outpatients with suspected CAD. Women presenting with stable symptoms for CAD have a higher burden of risk factors than men and a similar prevalence of chest pain, which is more frequently characterized as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness” by women. Their overall risk burden for CAD as estimated both by risk scores and providers is lower than that of men, consistent with the observed lower rate of test positivity. Women are more likely than men to be referred for imaging stress tests and have a different set of characteristics associated with a positive test. These data suggest that the known influences of sex on the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease are relevant to the entire diagnostic pathway of possible CAD and highlight the need for sex-specific approaches to CAD evaluation and testing. Continued investigation in this area is warranted to ensure optimal care for both men and women presenting with stable symptoms suggestive of CAD.
PERSPECTIVES.
Competency in Medical Knowledge
Among stable outpatients with symptoms suspicious for CAD, women had a higher risk factor burden than men and a similar prevalence of chest pain, which was more often characterized as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness” in women. Their overall risk for CAD, as estimated by providers and risk scores, was lower than that of men. Compared to men, women were more likely to be referred to imaging stress tests than non-imaging stress tests, but less likely to have a positive test. A number of characteristics predicted positive noninvasive test results, and many were similar between the sexes; however, in multivariable models, key predictors of test positivity were few and varied by sex.
Translational Outlook
Further studies are warranted to examine the underlying pathophysiology and implications for clinical care of the sex-based clinical differences observed along the entire diagnostic pathway of suspected CAD, including risk factor burden, presenting symptoms, and testing results.
Acknowledgments
The PROMISE trial was funded by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grants R01 HL098237, R01 HL098236, R01 HL098305, and R01 HL098235. The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Mark reported receiving personal fees from Medtronic, CardioDx, and St. Jude Medical and grant support from Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, AGA Medical, Merck, Oxygen Biotherapeutics, and AstraZeneca; Dr. Hoffmann reported receiving grant support from Siemens Healthcare and HeartFlow; Dr. Douglas reported receiving grant support from HeartFlow and serves on a data and safety monitoring board for General Electric Healthcare.
Abbreviations
- ACS
acute coronary syndrome
- CAD
coronary artery disease
- CASS
Coronary Artery Surgery Study
- ECG
electrocardiogram
- PROMISE
Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Contributor Information
Kshipra Hemal, Email: kshipra.hemal@duke.edu.
Neha J. Pagidipati, Email: neha.pagidipati@dm.duke.edu.
Adrian Coles, Email: adrian.coles@dm.duke.edu.
Rowena J. Dolor, Email: rowena.dolor@dm.duke.edu.
Daniel B. Mark, Email: daniel.mark@dm.duke.edu.
Patricia A. Pellikka, Email: pellikka.patricia@mayo.edu.
Udo Hoffmann, Email: uhoffmann@mgh.harvard.edu.
Sheldon E. Litwin, Email: litwins@musc.edu.
Melissa A. Daubert, Email: melissa.daubert@dm.duke.edu.
Svati H. Shah, Email: svati.shah@dm.duke.edu.
Kevin Ariani, Email: rojariani@aol.com.
Renee Bullock-Palmer, Email: renee.palmer@gmail.com.
Beth Martinez, Email: beth.martinez@dm.duke.edu.
Kerry L. Lee, Email: kerry.lee@dm.duke.edu.
Pamela S. Douglas, Email: pamela.douglas@dm.duke.edu.
References
- 1.Nguyen PK, Nag D, Wu JC. Sex differences in the diagnostic evaluation of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:144–152. doi: 10.1007/s12350-010-9315-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Khot UN, Khot MB, Bajzer CT, et al. Prevalence of conventional risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease. JAMA. 2003;290:898–904. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.7.898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Gerber Y, Weston SA, Killian JM, Jacobsen SJ, Roger VL. Sex and classic risk factors after myocardial infarction: a community study. Am Heart J. 2006;152:461–468. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kragholm K, Halim SA, Yang Q, et al. Sex-stratified trends in enrollment, patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes among non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: insights from clinical trials over 17 years. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:357–367. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hess EP, Perry JJ, Calder LA, et al. Sex differences in clinical presentation, management and outcome in emergency department patients with chest pain. CJEM. 2010;12:405–413. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500012550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Mujtaba SF, Rizvi SN, Talpur A, Younis F, Minhas K, Farooqui Z. Gender based differences in symptoms of acute coronary syndrome. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2012;22:285–288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Pelter MM, Riegel B, McKinley S, et al. Are there symptom differences in patients with coronary artery disease presenting to the ED ultimately diagnosed with or without ACS? Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30:1822–1828. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.03.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Shehab A, Al-Dabbagh B, AlHabib KF, et al. Gender disparities in the presentation, management and outcomes of acute coronary syndrome patients: data from the 2nd Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events (Gulf RACE-2) PLoS One. 2013;8:e55508. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Vogel B, Farhan S, Hahne S, et al. Sex-related differences in baseline characteristics, management and outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2015 May 7; doi: 10.1177/2048872615585514. [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Khan NA, Daskalopoulou SS, Karp I, et al. Sex differences in acute coronary syndrome symptom presentation in young patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1863–1871. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pelletier R, Humphries KH, Shimony A, et al. Sex-related differences in access to care among patients with premature acute coronary syndrome. CMAJ. 2014;186:497–504. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.131450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Leurent G, Garlantezec R, Auffret V, et al. Gender differences in presentation, management and inhospital outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Data from 5000 patients included in the ORBI prospective French regional registry. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2014;107:291–298. doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2014.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Poon S, Goodman SG, Yan RT, et al. Bridging the gender gap: insights from a contemporary analysis of sex-related differences in the treatment and outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J. 2012;163:66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.09.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Roger VL, Farkouh ME, Weston SA, et al. Sex differences in evaluation and outcome of unstable angina. JAMA. 2000;283:646–652. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.5.646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.DeVon HA, Ryan CJ, Ochs AL, Shapiro M. Symptoms across the continuum of acute coronary syndromes: differences between women and men. Am J Crit Care. 2008;17:14–24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Milner KA, Funk M, Richards S, Wilmes RM, Vaccarino V, Krumholz HM. Gender differences in symptom presentation associated with coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 1999;84:396–399. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(99)00322-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Goldberg R, Goff D, Cooper L, et al. Age and sex differences in presentation of symptoms among patients with acute coronary disease: the REACT trial: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment. Coron Artery Dis. 2000;11:399–407. doi: 10.1097/00019501-200007000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Everts B, Karlson BW, Wahrborg P, Hedner T, Herlitz J. Localization of pain in suspected acute myocardial infarction in relation to final diagnosis, age and sex, and site and type of infarction. Heart Lung. 1996;25:430–437. doi: 10.1016/s0147-9563(96)80043-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.O'Donnell S, McKee G, O'Brien F, Mooney M, Moser DK. Gendered symptom presentation in acute coronary syndrome: a cross sectional analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49:1325–1332. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Shaw LJ, Miller DD, Romeis JC, Kargl D, Younis LT, Chaitman BR. Gender differences in the noninvasive evaluation and management of patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:559–566. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-120-7-199404010-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1291–1300. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Lee KL, et al. PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain: rationale and design of the PROMISE trial. Am Heart J. 2014;167:796–803. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.03.003. e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.D’Agostino RB, Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117:743–753. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.699579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Goff DC, Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2935–2959. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979;300:1350–1358. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197906143002402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Genders TS, Steyerberg EW, Alkadhi H, et al. A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: validation, updating, and extension. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1316–1330. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:e44–e164. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Miller TD, Roger VL, Hodge DO, Hopfenspirger MR, Bailey KR, Gibbons RJ. Gender differences and temporal trends in clinical characteristics, stress test results and use of invasive procedures in patients undergoing evaluation for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:690–697. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01413-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Rugulies R. Depression as a predictor for coronary heart disease a review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23:51–61. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(02)00439-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Cheng VY, Berman DS, Rozanski A, et al. Performance of the traditional age, sex, and angina typicality-based approach for estimating pretest probability of angiographically significant coronary artery disease in patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography: results from the multinational Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation For Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter Registry (CONFIRM) Circulation. 2011;124:2423–2432. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.039255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;131:e29–e322. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Mieres JH, Shaw LJ, Arai A, et al. Role of noninvasive testing in the clinical evaluation of women with suspected coronary artery disease: consensus statement from the Cardiac Imaging Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, American Heart Association. Circulation. 2005;111:682–696. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000155233.67287.60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Arruda-Olson AM, Juracan EM, Mahoney DW, et al. Prognostic value of exercise echocardiography in 5,798 patients: is there a gender difference? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:625–631. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01801-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG, Kuntz KM, Douglas PS. Exercise echocardiography or exercise SPECT imaging? A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. JAMA. 1998;280:913–920. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.10.913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Ridker PM, Buring JE, Rifai N, Cook NR. Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardiovascular risk in women: The Reynolds Risk Score. JAMA. 2007;297:611–619. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.6.611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]