» Articles » PMID: 32987771

Guideline-Based Statin Eligibility, Coronary Artery Stenosis and Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Stable Chest Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the PROMISE Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2020 Sep 29
PMID 32987771
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Recommendations for preventive statin treatment in patients with stable chest pain may be difficult as symptoms can be unspecific. It is unclear if coronary CT angiography (CTA)-detected coronary artery disease (CAD) can optimize statin prescription.

Methods: In stable chest pain patients randomized to CTA in the PROMISE trial, statin eligibility was defined per 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. Primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction or unstable angina over 26 months median follow-up. Hazard ratios (HR) of non-obstructive (1-69% stenosis) and obstructive (≥70% stenosis) CAD for events were determined using Cox proportional hazard models. Calculated HR were then incorporated into the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equation (PCE) to revised ASCVD risk and assess re-classification of statin eligibility.

Results: Among 3986 patients (60.5 ± 8.2 years; 51% female), 72.9% (2904/3986) were statin eligible. Event rates in statin-eligible vs. ineligible patients were 3.3% vs. 2.3% (HR = 1.4 (95% CI 0.9-2.2), = 0.142). Although the proportion of statin-eligible patients increased with CAD severity, 54% without CAD were statin eligible. Incorporating information on CAD into PCE reclassified 12.7% of patients (1.3% towards statin, 11.4% towards no statin). Similar results were found in stratified analysis of statin naïve patients (reclassification of 13.9%, 1.0% towards statin, and 12.9% towards no statin). As a result, revised ASCVD risk improved model discrimination in all patients (c-statistic: 0.59 (95 %CI 0.55-0.62) vs. 0.52 (95 %CI 0.49-0.56); 0.001), while reducing statin use by 10.1% (62.7% vs. 72.9% statin eligible, 0.001).

Conclusion: In stable chest pain patients, integration of CAD into guideline recommendations was associated with greater accuracy to reclassify those at increased risk for incident events and a more efficient use of statins.

Citing Articles

The Effect of Different Statin-Based Lipid-Lowering Strategies on C-Reactive Protein Levels in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

Xue Z, Ye M, Jiang H, Li D, Hong X, Chen Z Clin Cardiol. 2024; 47(6):e24301.

PMID: 38895772 PMC: 11187842. DOI: 10.1002/clc.24301.


Clinical characteristics and statin eligibility of patients under 50 with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Haq A, Walser-Kuntz E, Gamam A, Albers A, Bae A, Benson G Clin Cardiol. 2024; 47(2):e24231.

PMID: 38362951 PMC: 10870333. DOI: 10.1002/clc.24231.

References
1.
Pursnani A, Massaro J, DAgostino Sr R, ODonnell C, Hoffmann U . Guideline-Based Statin Eligibility, Coronary Artery Calcification, and Cardiovascular Events. JAMA. 2015; 314(2):134-41. PMC: 4754085. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.7515. View

2.
Jensen L, Thayssen P, Pedersen K, Stender S, Haghfelt T . Regression of coronary atherosclerosis by simvastatin: a serial intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 2004; 110(3):265-70. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000135215.75876.41. View

3.
Douglas P, Hoffmann U, Lee K, Mark D, Al-Khalidi H, Anstrom K . PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of chest pain: rationale and design of the PROMISE trial. Am Heart J. 2014; 167(6):796-803.e1. PMC: 4044617. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.03.003. View

4.
Iwasaki K, Matsumoto T, Aono H, Furukawa H, Samukawa M . Prevalence of non-calcified coronary plaque on 64-slice computed tomography in asymptomatic patients with zero and low coronary artery calcium. Can J Cardiol. 2010; 26(7):377-80. PMC: 2950712. DOI: 10.1016/s0828-282x(10)70419-0. View

5.
Sattar N, Preiss D, Murray H, Welsh P, Buckley B, de Craen A . Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials. Lancet. 2010; 375(9716):735-42. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61965-6. View