Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology

Advanced search

Assessment of Pre-test and Clinical Probability in the Diagnosis of Chronic Coronary Syndrome — What's New?

Full Text:


In the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, the diagnostic algorithm for chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) was significantly changed, a significant revision of the pretest probability assessment scale (PTP) was made, an assessment of the clinical probability of obstructive coronary artery disease was proposed, the recommendations on the use of diagnostic tests in various groups of patients were updated. Such a radical change in approaches to the diagnosis of CCS raised many questions that had to be answered by further studies conducted in the past two years. The review provides data on the validation of the new PTP scale and the proposed assessment of the clinical probability of obstructive coronary artery disease, taking into account risk factors and with the additional inclusion of information on the calcium index of coronary arteries. The proposals of experts on new algorithms for the choice of non-invasive / invasive examination of this category of patients were also considered. Overall, the new PTV rating scale (ECS 2019) has been validated and validated in retrospective analyzes of cohort studies. The scale for assessing the clinical likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease makes it possible to classify 3.8-5 times more patients as a low probability of coronary artery disease compared to the assessment of PTP alone. Assessment of the post-test probability of coronary artery disease does not allow to confirm the presence of obstructive lesion and was not used. The experts proposed new modifications of the diagnostic algorithm (with a detailed assessment of the clinical probability, as well as without taking it into account), which require verification in further studies. Therefore, it is advisable to conduct prospective studies to confirm the possibility of reducing the total number of non-invasive and invasive studies in patients with suspected coronary heart disease, as well as the safety of such a decrease in diagnostic procedures.

About the Authors

A. N. Sumin
Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases
Russian Federation

Alexey N. Sumin.


eLibrary SPIN 5772-7038

A. V. Shcheglova
Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases
Russian Federation

Anna V. Shcheglova.


eLibrary SPIN 1722-7300


1. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(3):407-77. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425.

2. 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):846-52. DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2014.03.001.

3. Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, et al. Task Force Members. 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.

4. 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: 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(24):e44-e164. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.013.

5. Timmis A, Roobottom CA. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence updates the stable chest pain guideline with radical changes to the diagnostic paradigm. Heart. 2017;103(13):982-6. DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308341.

6. Сумин А.Н. Оценка предтестовой вероятности в диагностике обструктивных поражений коронарных артерий: нерешенные вопросы. Российский Кардиологический Журнал. 2017;(11):68-76. DOI:10.15829/1560-4071-2017-11-68-76.

7. Сумин А.Н. Место клинической оценки в выявлении обструктивных поражений коронарных артерий при стабильной ишемической болезни сердца. Часть I. Российский Кардиологический Журнал. 2019;24(5):95-100. DOI:10.15829/1560-4071-2019-5-95-100.

8. Корок Е.В., Сумин А.Н. Сложности в диагностике обструктивных поражений коронарных артерий: роль неинвазивных тестов. Комплексные Проблемы Сердечно-сосудистых Заболеваний. 2019;8(1):70-9. DOI:10.17802/2306-1278-2019-8-1-70-79.

9. Российский национальный конгресс кардиологов. 24-26 сентября 2019 г., Екатеринбург. Видеотрансляция. Доступно на:

10. Sumin AN. A New Diagnostic Algorithm for Examining Patients with Suspected Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Questions Remain? Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2020;16(3):474-80 (In Russ.) DOI:10.20996/1819-6446-2020-06-14.

11. 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.

12. 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 (CON-FIRM). Circulation. 2011;124(22):2423-32,1-8. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.039255.

13. Foldyna B, Udelson JE, Kara´dy J, et al. Pretest probability for patients with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease: reevaluating 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.

14. 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.

15. Bing R, Singh T, Dweck MR, et al. Validation of European Society of Cardiology pre-test probabilities for obstructive coronary artery disease in suspected stable angina. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2020;6(4):293-300. DOI:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcaa006.

16. Winther S, Schmidt SE, Rasmussen LD, et al. Validation of the European Society of Cardiology pretest probability model for obstructive coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(14):1401-11. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa755.

17. Sechtem U, Ong P. Coronary stenoses in patients suspected to have obstructive coronary artery disease: the exemption rather than the rule! Eur Heart J. 2021;42(14):1412-4. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa762.

18. Fyyaz S, Rasoul H, Miles C, et al. ESC 2019 guidelines on chronic coronary syndromes: could calcium scoring improve detection of coronary artery disease in patients with low risk score. Findings from a retrospective cohort of patients in a district general hospital. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;10:20480040211032789. DOI:10.1177/20480040211032789.

19. 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.

20. Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. ISCHEMIA Research Group. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(15):1395-407. DOI:10.1056/NEJ-Moa1915922.

21. Neglia D. “EURECA” Use of Imaging in CCS. ESC Congress 2021 - The Digital Experience [cited 2021 Oct 10]. Available from:

22. Winther S, Schmidt SE, Mayrhofer T, et al. Incorporating Coronary Calcification Into Pre-Test Assessment of the Likelihood of Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(21):2421-32. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.585.

23. Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1291-300. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1415516.

24. Nissen L, Winther S, Westra J, et al. Diagnosing coronary artery disease after a positive coronary computed tomography angiography: the Dan-NICAD open label, parallel, head to head, randomized controlled diagnostic accuracy trial of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;19(4):369-77. DOI:10.1093/ehjci/jex342.

25. Nasir K, Narula J, Mortensen MB. Message for Upcoming Chest Pain Management Guidelines: Time to Acknowledge the Power of Zero. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(21):2433-5. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.593.

26. Therming C, Galatius S, Heitmann M, et al. Low diagnostic yield of non-invasive testing in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: results from a large unselected hospital-based sample. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2018;4(4):301-8. DOI:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcx048.

27. Knuuti J, Ballo H, Juarez-Orozco LE, et al. The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(35):3322-30. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy267.


For citations:

Sumin A.N., Shcheglova A.V. Assessment of Pre-test and Clinical Probability in the Diagnosis of Chronic Coronary Syndrome — What's New? Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2022;18(1):92-96. (In Russ.)

Views: 335

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 1819-6446 (Print)
ISSN 2225-3653 (Online)