http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Dou Guanhua (검색결과 1 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Liu Zinuan,Ding Yipu,Dou Guanhua,Wang Xi,Shan Dongkai,He Bai,Jing Jing,Chen Yundai,Yang Junjie 대한영상의학회 2022 Korean Journal of Radiology Vol.23 No.10
Objective: Evidence supports the efficacy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based risk scores in cardiovascular risk stratification of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to compare two CCTAbased risk score algorithms, Leiden and Confirm scores, in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and suspected CAD. Materials and Methods: This single-center prospective cohort study consecutively included 1241 DM patients (54.1% male, 60.2 ± 10.4 years) referred for CCTA for suspected CAD in 2015–2017. Leiden and Confirm scores were calculated and stratified as < 5 (reference), 5–20, and > 20 for Leiden and < 14.3 (reference), 14.3–19.5, and > 19.5 for Confirm. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as the composite outcomes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization. The Cox model and Kaplan–Meier method were used to evaluate the effect size of the risk scores on MACE. The area under the curve (AUC) at the median follow-up time was also compared between score algorithms. Results: During a median follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range, 27.6–37.3 months), 131 of MACE were recorded, including 17 cardiovascular deaths, 28 nonfatal MIs, 64 unstable anginas requiring hospitalization, and 22 strokes. An incremental incidence of MACE was observed in both Leiden and Confirm scores, with an increase in the scores (log-rank p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, compared with Leiden score < 5, the hazard ratios for Leiden scores of 5–20 and > 20 were 2.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53–3.69; p < 0.001) and 4.39 (95% CI: 2.40–8.01; p < 0.001), respectively, while the Confirm score did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with the risk of MACE. The Leiden score showed a greater AUC of 0.840 compared to 0.777 for the Confirm score (p < 0.001). Conclusion: CCTA-based risk score algorithms could be used as reliable cardiovascular risk predictors in patients with DM and suspected CAD, among which the Leiden score outperformed the Confirm score in predicting MACE.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
