Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new scoring system for evaluating coronary artery disease by using blood pressure variability

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop a new scoring system using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) to assist in the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). One hundred twenty-five subjects (53.1 ± 9.6 years of age) were included. Pearson’s tests were first performed to identify the parameters that correlated with Duke Treadmill Score (DTS). Blood test parameters and blood pressure variability (BPV) measures that were extracted from the ABPM were included. Next, a multiple linear regression analysis was performed to train a new scoring system in the 84 patients from the 125 patients. Then, a correlation analysis was conducted to validate the correlation between the new scoring system and DTS in the remaining 41 subjects. A further correlation analysis was used to verify the clinical value of the new scoring system using ultrasonic cardiogram (UCG) and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV). Our new scoring system, which had a 24.096 − 0.083 × residual standard deviation of night systolic blood pressure (SBP) − 0.130 × age − 0.206 × average real variability of night SBP, was correlated with DTS (r = 0.312, P = 0.047). Moreover, our new scoring system was also correlated with various markers of cardiac function (r = −0.290, P = 0.001; r = −0.262, P = 0.004; r = −0.303, P = 0.001; r = −0.306, P = 0.001, respectively) measured by UCG and with baPWV (r = 0.529, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the r-values for the BPV Score versus the markers were closer to −1 than the corresponding r-values for the Duke Score vs the same parameters. And the differences in r-values between Duke Score and BPV Score were statistically significant (P = 0.022). In conclusion, the new scoring system based on ABPM has potential as a non-invasive tool for evaluating CAD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boyle C, Partington S, Ahmed N, Myers J, Froelicher V (2005) Recent advances in exercise testing. Curr Cardiol Rev 1(2):153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sharma K, Kohli P, Gulati M (2012) An update on exercise stress testing. Curr Probl Cardiol 37(5):177–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Acar Z, Korkmaz L, Agac MT et al (2012) Relationship between Duke Treadmill Score and coronary artery lesion complexity. Clin Invest Med 35(6):365–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kwok JM, Miller TD, Christian TF, Hodge DO, Gibbons RJ (1999) Prognostic value of a treadmill exercise score in symptomatic patients with nonspecific ST-T abnormalities on resting ECG. J Am Med Assoc 282(11):1047–1053

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Shaw LJ, Peterson ED, Shaw LK et al (1998) Use of a prognostic treadmill score in identifying diagnostic coronary disease subgroups. Circulation 98(16):1622–1630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abbase AH, Al-Hamdany MHA (2011) Value of Duke’s Treadmill Score and other parameters to predict coronary arterial disease. Med J Babylon 8(2):230–242

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mark DB, Shaw L, Harrell FJ et al (1991) Prognostic value of a treadmill exercise score in outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 325(12):849–853

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Frank E, Lee KL, Califf RM, Pryor DB (1987) Exercise treadmill score for predicting prognosis in coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 106(6):793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith R (1981) Indications and contraindications for exercise testing. J Am Med Assoc 246(9):1015–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berent R, Auer J, von Duvillard SP, Sinzinger H, Schmid P (2010) Komplikationen bei der Ergometrie. Herz 35(4):267–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pottle K (1988) Cardiovascular screening before exercise. Can Fam Physician Médecin de famille canadien 34:119–121

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. H cht C (2013) Blood pressure variability: prognostic value and therapeutic implications. ISRN Hypertens 2013:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lin W, Liu Y, Zhou B et al (2014) The relationship between the blood pressure variability and the severity of coronary artery lesions. J Am College Cardiol. 64(No.16 Suppl):C168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Okada H, Fukui M, Tanaka M et al (2013) Visit-to-visit variability in systolic blood pressure is a novel risk factor for the progression of coronary artery calcification. Hypertens Res 36(11):996–999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Parati G, Ochoa JE, Salvi P, Lombardi C, Bilo G (2013) Prognostic value of blood pressure variability and average blood pressure levels in patients with hypertension and diabetes. Diabetes Care 36(Supplement_2):S312–S324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamaguchi Y, Wada M, Sato H et al (2014) Impact of ambulatory blood pressure variability on cerebral small vessel disease progression and cognitive decline in community-based elderly Japanese. Am J Hypertens 27(10):1257–1267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwartz GL, Turner ST, Moore JH, Sing CF (2000) Effect of time of day on intraindividual variability in ambulatory blood pressure. Am J Hypertens 13(11):1203–1209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sueta D, Koibuchi N, Hasegawa Y et al (2014) Telmisartan exerts sustained blood pressure control and reduces blood pressure variability in metabolic syndrome by inhibiting sympathetic activity. Am J Hypertens 27(12):1464–1471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Parati G, Ochoa JE, Lombardi C, Bilo G (2013) Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat Rev Cardiol 10(3):143–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tai C, Sun Y, Dai N et al (2015) Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability: a meta-analysis of 77,299 patients. J Clin Hypertens 17(2):107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E et al (2010) Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension. Lancet 375(9718):895–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Levitan EB, Kaciroti N, Oparil S, Julius S, Muntner P (2013) Relationships between metrics of visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure. J Hum Hypertens 27(10):589–593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Brien E (2011) Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement in clinical practice and research: a critical review of a technique in need of implementation. J Intern Med 269(5):478–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Imai Y, Abe K, Sasaki S et al (1990) Determination of clinical accuracy and nocturnal blood pressure pattern by new portable device for monitoring indirect ambulatory blood pressure. Am J Hypertens 3(4):293–301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Xiong H, Wu D, Tian X et al (2014) The relationship between the 24 h blood pressure variability and carotid intima-media thickness: a compared study. Comput Math Methods Med 2014:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Garc a-Garc a N, Garc a-Ortiz L, Recio-Rodr guez JI et al (2013) Relationship of 24-h blood pressure variability with vascular structure and function in hypertensive patients. Blood Press Monit 18(2):101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Giantin V, Perissinotto E, Franchin A et al (2013) Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in elderly patients with chronic atrial fibrillation: is it absolutely contraindicated or a useful tool in clinical practice and research? Hypertens Res 36(10):889–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fearon WF, Gauri AJ, Myers J, Raxwal VK, Atwood JE, Froelicher VF (2002) A comparison of treadmill scores to diagnose coronary artery disease. Clin Cardiol 25(3):117–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Alvarez TJ, Martin-Ambrosio ES, Tarin ER, Fernandez MM, De la Tassa CM (2008) Significance of the treadmill scores and high-risk criteria for exercise testing in non-high-risk patients with unstable angina and an intermediate Duke Treadmill Score. Acta Cardiol 63(5):557–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Johnson GG, Decker WW, Lobl JK et al (2008) Risk stratification of patients in an emergency department chest pain unit: prognostic value of exercise treadmill testing using the Duke Score. Int J Emerg Med 1(2):91–95

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Mena LJ, Maestre GE, Hansen TW et al (2014) How many measurements are needed to estimate blood pressure variability without loss of prognostic information? Am J Hypertens 27(1):46–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mena L, Pintos S, Queipo NV, Aizpurua JA, Maestre G, Sulbaran T (2005) A reliable index for the prognostic significance of blood pressure variability. J Hypertens 23(3):505–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuss H (2003) Calibration is based on least squares regression analysis. It can be used under the assumption of homogeneous variances. Using chromatographic methods variances are often heteroskedastic. Weighting of variances is a valuable and simple tool to get realistic prediction intervals (y deviations) and uncertainties of the result (x deviations). LC· GC Eur 2

  34. Rice WR, Gaines SD (1989) One-way analysis of variance with unequal variances. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86(21):8183–8184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. He YM, Yang XJ, Hui J et al (2006) Low serum albumin levels in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: what does it mean? Acta Cardiol 61(3):333–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hilborn ED, Catanzaro DG, Jackson LE (2012) Repeated holdout cross-validation of model to estimate risk of Lyme disease by landscape characteristics. Int J Environ Health Res 22(1):1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ludbrook J (2010) Confidence in Altman–Bland plots: a critical review of the method of differences. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 37(2):143–149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lin W, Zhang H, Zhang Y (2013) Investigation on cardiovascular risk prediction using physiological parameters. Comput Math Methods Med 2013:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dolan E, Stanton A, Thijs L et al (2005) Superiority of ambulatory over clinic blood pressure measurement in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study. Hypertension 46(1):156–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Anantharam B, Janardhanan R, Hayat S, Senior R (2013) Ischaemic burden determined by myocardial contrast echocardiography predicts mortality in patients with new-onset shortness of breath, suspected heart failure and no previous coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiol 168(2):1670–1671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Liu S, Wassef AW, Moussa M, Jassal DS, Hussain F (2013) The utility of diastolic dysfunction on echocardiography for predicting coronary artery disease burden as defined by the syntax score. Can J Cardiol 29(No. 10 Suppl):S304–S305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chatzizisis YS, Murthy VL, Solomon SD (2013) Echocardiographic evaluation of coronary artery disease. Coron Artery Dis 24(7):613–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yamazaki T, Myers J, Froelicher VF (2004) Effect of age and end point on the prognostic value of the exercise test. Chest 125(5):1920–1928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sadrzadeh Rafie AH, Dewey FE, Sungar GW et al (2008) Age and double product (systolic blood pressure × heart rate) reserve-adjusted modification of the Duke Treadmill Score nomogram in men. Am J Cardiol 102(10):1407–1412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sadrzadeh Rafie AH, Dewey FE, Myers J, Froelicher VF (2008) Age-adjusted modification of the Duke Treadmill Score nomogram. Am Heart J 155(6):1033–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. O’Brien E (2008) Ambulatory blood pressure measurement: the case for implementation in primary care. Hypertension 51(6):1435–1441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Science and the Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province (2013A022100036 and 2014A020212257).

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Cardiology, Guangzhou General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Region, PLA, Guangzhou, 510010, China

      Wei Zhu, Jian Qiu, Hongqiang Lei, Zekun Cai, Hui Zhao, Yu Deng, Jun Ma & Lin Xu

    2. The First Hospital Affiliated of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, 510080, China

      Wei Zhu & Liheng Ma

    Authors
    1. Wei Zhu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Jian Qiu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Liheng Ma
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Hongqiang Lei
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Zekun Cai
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Hui Zhao
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Yu Deng
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    8. Jun Ma
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    9. Lin Xu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding authors

    Correspondence to Jun Ma or Lin Xu.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of interest

    We declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to this paper.

    Ethical approval

    This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command of PLA.

    Additional information

    Wei Zhu and Jian Qiu have contributed equally to this work.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Zhu, W., Qiu, J., Ma, L. et al. A new scoring system for evaluating coronary artery disease by using blood pressure variability. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 40, 751–758 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-017-0563-1

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-017-0563-1

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation