DOI: 10.25881/BPNMSC.2020.30.69.023


Ansheles A.A.1, Sergienko I.V.1, Denisenko-Kankiya E.I.2, Tyurin V.P.3, Sergienko V.B.1

1 National Medical Research Center of Cardiology, Moscow

2 City Clinical Hospital No. 4, Moscow

3 Pirogov National Medical and Surgical Center, Moscow


Currently, Russian, European and American on stable coronary artery disease/chronic coronary syndromes guidelines indicate performing pretest assessment of probability (PTP) of the disease in patients with suspected CAD. The results of this assessment specify the diagnostic examination algorithm, which then forms the basis of a conservative and/or invasive therapeutic strategy. The scales for assessing the pretest risk of coronary artery disease underwent significant changes over the past decades, but to date they still differ from each other and are generally considered not perfect. The review examines current problems of the pretest probability assessment of coronary heart disease, as well as the issues of the of the PTP scales applicability in Russian Federation.

Keywords: ischemic heart disease, pretest probability assessment of coronary artery disease.


1. Stable ischemic heart disease. Clinical guidelines. Moscow: 2020. (In Russ).]

2. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2019;41(3):407–77. Doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425

3. Juarez-Orozco LE, Saraste A, Capodanno D, et al. Impact of a decreasing pre-test probability on the performance of diagnostic tests for coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20(11):1198–207. Doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jez054.

4. Foldyna B, Udelson JE, Karady J, et al. Pretest probability for patients with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease: re-evaluating Diamond-Forrester for the contemporary era and clinical implications: insights from the PROMISE trial. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20(5):574–81. Doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jey182.

5. 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(22):2423–32. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.039255.

6. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: executive summary: 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. Circulation. 2012;126(25):3097–137. Doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182776f83.

7. Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(38):2949–3003. Doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht296.

8. Информационный бюллетень ВОЗ. — 2015. — №317. [WHO Fact Sheet. 2015;(317). (In Russ).]

9. Pryor DB, Shaw L, McCants CB, et al. Value of the history and physical in identifying patients at increased risk for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(2):81–90. Doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-118-2-199301150-00001.

10. Jespersen L, Abildstrom SZ, Hvelplund A, et al. Burden of hospital admission and repeat angiography in angina pectoris patients with and without coronary artery disease: a registry-based cohort study. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e93170. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093170.

11. Patel MR, Dai D, Hernandez AF, et al. Prevalence and predictors of nonobstructive coronary artery disease identified with coronary angiography in contemporary clinical practice. Am Heart J. 2014;167(6):846–852 e2. Doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.03.001.

12. Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Cozzens K, et al. Appropriateness of diagnostic catheterization for suspected coronary artery disease in New York State. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(1):19–27. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.000741.

13. 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(11):1316–30. Doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr014.

14. Smeeth L, Skinner JS, Ashcroft J, et al. NICE clinical guideline: chest pain of recent onset. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(577):607–10. Doi: 10.3399/bjgp10X515124.

15. Investigators S-H. CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9985):2383–91. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60291-4.

16. Baskaran L, Danad I, Gransar H, et al. A Comparison of the Updated Diamond-Forrester, CAD Consortium, and CONFIRM History-Based Risk Scores for Predicting Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: The SCOT-HEART Coronary CTA Cohort. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(7):1392–400. Doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.02.020.

17. Villines TC, Hulten EA, Shaw LJ, et al. Prevalence and severity of coronary artery disease and adverse events among symptomatic patients with coronary artery calcification scores of zero undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography: results from the CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(24):2533–40. Doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.10.851.

18. Min JK, Dunning A, Lin FY, et al. Age- and sex-related differences in all-cause mortality risk based on coronary computed tomography angiography findings results from the International Multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter Registry) of 23,854 patients without known coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(8):849–60. Doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.02.074.

19. Pickett CA, Hulten EA, Goyal M, et al. Accuracy of traditional age, gender and symptom based pre-test estimation of angiographically significant coronary artery disease in patients referred for coronary computed tomographic angiography. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112(2):208–11. Doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.03.015.

20. Genders TS, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG, et al. Prediction model to estimate presence of coronary artery disease: retrospective pooled analysis of existing cohorts. BMJ. 2012;344:e3485. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3485.

21. Min JK, Dunning A, Gransar H, et al. Medical history for prognostic risk assessment and diagnosis of stable patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Med. 2015;128(8):871–8. Doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.10.031.

22. Bittencourt MS, Hulten E, Polonsky TS, et al. European Society of Cardiology-Recommended Coronary Artery Disease Consortium Pretest Probability Scores More Accurately Predict Obstructive Coronary Disease and Cardiovascular Events Than the Diamond and Forrester Score: The Partners Registry. Circulation. 2016;134(3):201–11. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023396.

23. Ferreira AM, Marques H, Tralhao A, et al. Pre-test probability of obstructive coronary stenosis in patients undergoing coronary CT angiography: Comparative performance of the modified diamond-Forrester algorithm versus methods incorporating cardiovascular risk factors. Int J Cardiol. 2016;222:346–51. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.07.180.

24. Genders TSS, Coles A, Hoffmann U, et al. The External Validity of Prediction Models for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: Insights From the PROMISE Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(3):437–46. Doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.02.020.

25. Reeh J, Therming CB, Heitmann M, et al. Prediction of obstructive coronary artery disease and prognosis in patients with suspected stable angina. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(18):1426–35. Doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy806.

26. Adamson PD, Newby DE, Hill CL, et al. Comparison of International Guidelines for Assessment of Suspected Stable Angina: Insights From the PROMISE and SCOT-HEART. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(9):1301–10. Doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.06.021.

27. NationaL Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Chest pain of recent onset: assessment and diagnosis of recent onset chest pain or discomfort of suspected cardiac origin (update) Clinical guideline 95. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2016.

28. Di Carli MF, Gupta A. Estimating Pre-Test Probability of Coronary Artery Disease: Battle of the Scores in an Evolving CAD Landscape. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(7):1401–1404. Doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.04.036.

29. Jespersen L, Hvelplund A, Abildstrom SZ, et al. Stable angina pectoris with no obstructive coronary artery disease is associated with increased risks of major adverse cardiovascular events. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(6):734–44. Doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr331.

30. Pitts R, Daugherty SL, Tang F, et al. Optimal secondary prevention medication use in acute myocardial infarction patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease is modified by management strategy: insights from the TRIUMPH Registry. Clin Cardiol. 2017;40(6):347–55. Doi: 10.1002/clc.22686.

31. Taqueti VR, Shaw LJ, Cook NR, et al. Excess Cardiovascular Risk in Women Relative to Men Referred for Coronary Angiography Is Associated With Severely Impaired Coronary Flow Reserve, Not Obstructive Disease. Circulation. 2017;135(6):566–77. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023266.

32. Sato A, Hiroe M, Tamura M, et al. Quantitative measures of coronary stenosis severity by 64-Slice CT angiography and relation to physiologic significance of perfusion in nonobese patients: comparison with stress myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(4):564–72. Doi: jnumed.107.042481/10.2967/jnumed.107.042481.

33. Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Valenta I, et al. Functionally relevant coronary artery disease: comparison of 64-section CT angiography with myocardial perfusion SPECT. Radiology. 2008;248(2):414–23. Doi: 2482071307/10.1148/radiol.2482071307.

34. Djaberi R, Roodt J, Schuijf JD, et al. Endothelial dysfunction in diabetic patients with abnormal myocardial perfusion in the absence of epicardial obstructive coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(12):1980–6. Doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.065193.

35. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(15):1503–16. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa070829.

36. Zimmermann FM, Ferrara A, Johnson NP, et al. Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(45):3182–8. Doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv452.

37. van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386(10006):1853–60. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00057-4.

38. Ko DT, Guo H, Wijeysundera HC, et al. Assessing the association of appropriateness of coronary revascularization and clinical outcomes for patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(19):1876–84. Doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.06.056.

39. Borren N, Maas A, Ottervanger J. Stop invasive coronary angiography as the gold standard for the diagnosis of stable angina! Interv Cardiol. 2015;7:415–18. Doi: 10.2217/ica.15.35.

40. Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(15):1395–407. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915922.

41. Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, Bangalore S, et al. Baseline Characteristics and Risk Profiles of Participants in the ISCHEMIA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(3):273–86. Doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.0014.

42. Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, et al. Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(8):1012–24. Doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq500.

43. Boiten HJ, van den Berge JC, Valkema R, et al. Ischemia burden on stress SPECT MPI predicts long-term outcomes after revascularization in stable coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25(3):958–66. Doi: 10.1007/s12350-016-0735-5.

44. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998;97(6):535–43.

45. Shaw LJ, Hendel R, Borges-Neto S, et al. Prognostic value of normal exercise and adenosine (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin SPECT imaging: results from the multicenter registry of 4,728 patients. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(2):134–9.

46. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117(10):1283–91. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.743963.

47. Simonsen JA, Mickley H, Johansen A, et al. Outcome of revascularisation in stable coronary artery disease without ischaemia: a Danish registry-based follow-up study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016169. Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016169.

48. Kim YH, Ahn JM, Park DW, et al. Impact of ischemia-guided revascularization with myocardial perfusion imaging for patients with multivessel coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(3):181–90. Doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.061.

49. Ansheles AA, Sergienko IV, Denisenko-Kankiya EI, et al. Myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computer tomography and coronary angiography results in patients with different pretest probability of ischemic heart disease. Terapevtichesky Archive. 2020;(4):30–36.

50. Sergienko IV, Ansheles AA. Radionuclide identification of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia in the russian population using the example of Moscow city and Moscow region. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2018;(1):77–87.

For citation

Ansheles A.A., Sergienko I.V., Denisenko-Kankiya E.I., Tyurin V.P., Sergienko V.B. Current state of the problem of pretest probability assessment of ischemic heart disease. Bulletin of Pirogov National Medical & Surgical Center. 2020;3-2(15):124-132. (In Russ.)