28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predictive value of targeted proteomics for coronary plaque morphology in patients with suspected coronary artery disease

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Risk stratification is crucial to improve tailored therapy in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). This study investigated the ability of targeted proteomics to predict presence of high-risk plaque or absence of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with suspected CAD, defined by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA).

          Methods

          Patients with suspected CAD ( n = 203) underwent CCTA. Plasma levels of 358 proteins were used to generate machine learning models for the presence of CCTA-defined high-risk plaques or complete absence of coronary atherosclerosis. Performance was tested against a clinical model containing generally available clinical characteristics and conventional biomarkers.

          Findings

          A total of 196 patients with analyzable protein levels ( n = 332) was included for analysis. A subset of 35 proteins was identified predicting the presence of high-risk plaques. The developed machine learning model had fair diagnostic performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0·79 ± 0·01, outperforming prediction with generally available clinical characteristics (AUC = 0·65 ± 0·04, p < 0·05). Conversely, a different subset of 34 proteins was predictive for the absence of CAD (AUC = 0·85 ± 0·05), again outperforming prediction with generally available characteristics (AUC = 0·70 ± 0·04, p < 0·05).

          Interpretation

          Using machine learning models, trained on targeted proteomics, we defined two complementary protein signatures: one for identification of patients with high-risk plaques and one for identification of patients with absence of CAD. Both biomarker subsets were superior to generally available clinical characteristics and conventional biomarkers in predicting presence of high-risk plaque or absence of coronary atherosclerosis. These promising findings warrant external validation of the value of targeted proteomics to identify cardiovascular risk in outcome studies.

          Fund

          This study was supported by an unrestricted research grant from HeartFlow Inc. and partly supported by a European Research Area Network on Cardiovascular Diseases (ERA-CVD) grant (ERA CVD JTC2017, OPERATION). Funders had no influence on trial design, data evaluation, and interpretation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Stacked generalization

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Stability selection

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of Coronary CT Angiography, SPECT, PET, and Hybrid Imaging for Diagnosis of Ischemic Heart Disease Determined by Fractional Flow Reserve

              Importance At present, the choice of noninvasive testing for a diagnosis of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) is ambiguous, but nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging with single-photon emission tomography (SPECT) or positron emission tomography (PET) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is predominantly used for this purpose. However, to date, prospective head-to-head studies are lacking regarding the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging modalities. Furthermore, the combination of anatomical and functional assessments configuring a hybrid approach may yield improved accuracy. Objectives To establish the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA, SPECT, and PET and explore the incremental value of hybrid imaging compared with fractional flow reserve. Design, Setting, and Participants A prospective clinical study involving 208 patients with suspected CAD who underwent CCTA, technetium 99m/tetrofosmin–labeled SPECT, and [ 15 O]H 2 O PET with examination of all coronary arteries by fractional flow reserve was performed from January 23, 2012, to October 25, 2014. Scans were interpreted by core laboratories on an intention-to-diagnose basis. Hybrid images were generated in case of abnormal noninvasive anatomical or functional test results. Main Outcomes and Measures Hemodynamically significant stenosis in at least 1 coronary artery as indicated by a fractional flow reserve of 0.80 or less and relative diagnostic accuracy of SPECT, PET, and CCTA in detecting hemodynamically significant CAD. Results Of the 208 patients in the study (76 women and 132 men; mean [SD] age, 58 [9] years), 92 (44.2%) had significant CAD (fractional flow reserve ≤0.80). Sensitivity was 90% (95% CI, 82%-95%) for CCTA, 57% (95% CI, 46%-67%) for SPECT, and 87% (95% CI, 78%-93%) for PET, whereas specificity was 60% (95% CI, 51%-69%) for CCTA, 94% (95% CI, 88%-98%) for SPECT, and 84% (95% CI, 75%-89%) for PET. Single-photon emission tomography was found to be noninferior to PET in terms of specificity ( P  < .001) but not in terms of sensitivity ( P  > .99) using the predefined absolute margin of 10%. Diagnostic accuracy was highest for PET (85%; 95% CI, 80%-90%) compared with that of CCTA (74%; 95% CI, 67%-79%; P  = .003) and SPECT (77%; 95% CI, 71%-83%; P  = .02). Diagnostic accuracy was not enhanced by either hybrid SPECT and CCTA (76%; 95% CI, 70%-82%; P  = .75) or by PET and CCTA (84%; 95% CI, 79%-89%; P  = .82), but resulted in an increase in specificity ( P  = .004) at the cost of a decrease in sensitivity ( P  = .001). Conclusions and Relevance This controlled clinical head-to-head comparative study revealed PET to exhibit the highest accuracy for diagnosis of myocardial ischemia. Furthermore, a combined anatomical and functional assessment does not add incremental diagnostic value but guides clinical decision-making in an unsalutary fashion. This head-to-head comparative study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography, single-photon emission tomography, and positron emission tomography and explores the incremental value of hybrid imaging compared with fractional flow reserve. Question What are the diagnostic performances of coronary computed tomography angiography, single-photon emission tomography, [ 15 O]H 2 O positron emission tomography, and hybrid imaging for the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia using fractional flow reserve as a reference standard? Findings In this head-to-head comparative study of 208 adults, sensitivity was 90% for coronary computed tomography angiography, 57% for single-photon emission tomography, and 87% for positron emission tomography, whereas specificity was 60% for coronary computed tomography angiography, 94% for single-photon emission tomography, and 84% for positron emission tomography. Positron emission tomography exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy compared with single-photon emission tomography and coronary computed tomography angiography. Meaning Coronary computed tomography angiography and [ 15 O]H 2 O positron emission tomography are both useful in the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia, while single-photon emission tomography and hybrid imaging guide clinical decision making in an unsalutary fashion.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                EBioMedicine
                EBioMedicine
                EBioMedicine
                Elsevier
                2352-3964
                23 December 2018
                January 2019
                23 December 2018
                : 39
                : 109-117
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [b ]HorAIzon BV, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [c ]Department of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [d ]Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [e ]Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, NY, New York, United States
                [f ]Dalio Institute for Cardiovascular Imaging, Weill-Cornell Medical College, NY, New York, United States
                [g ]Department of Medicine and Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
                [h ]Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
                [i ]Wallenberg Laboratory, University of Gothenberg, Gothenberg, Sweden
                [j ]Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [k ]Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
                [l ]DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. p.knaapen@ 123456vumc.nl
                [1]

                MJB and EL contributed equally to the manuscript.

                Article
                S2352-3964(18)30610-8
                10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.12.033
                6355456
                30587458
                d4e8bc6a-8e0e-4dd2-ad1e-6faad8563377
                © 2018 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 October 2018
                : 29 November 2018
                : 17 December 2018
                Categories
                Research paper

                coronary artery disease,proteomics,coronary computed tomography angiography,biomarkers,risk assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article