Background To evaluate the power of abnormal resting ECG versus Rose Questionnaire angina and its additive value in predicting 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in an Iranian urban population with high prevalence of CHD.
Methods There were 5101 subjects ≥30 years (2900 women), free of CHD at baseline; they were categorised in to four groups according to their Rose Angina and ECG status for ischaemia as Rose−/ECG−, Rose+/ECG−, Rose−/ECG+ and Rose+/ECG+. HR of CHD was estimated using Cox regression analysis, given Rose−/ECG− as the reference. The authors used Akaike information criterion, C-index and integrated discrimination improvement indices to evaluate the prognostic value of ECG when would be added to Rose Questionnaire.
Results During follow-up, 387 CHD events (169 women) were observed. Multivariate analysis showed a HR of 2.59 (95% CI 1.71 to 3.91) and 2.26 (1.48 to 3.44) for Rose+/ECG− group in men and women, respectively. These figures for Rose−/ECG+ were 1.36 (0.90 to 2.05) in men and 2.09 (1.40 to 3.12) in women. There was no any interaction between Rose Questionnaire and gender to predict incident CHD, in age-adjusted analysis. Akaike information criterion, C-index and relative integrated discrimination improvement did not show any difference between models including Rose alone and Rose plus ECG to predict CHD events especially in men.
Conclusions Rose Questionnaire as a simple screening tool is equally important to predict incident CHD in both genders. Adding abnormal ECG to angina did not culminate in higher risk for future CHD events.
- Rose Questionnaire
- Minnesota coding
- Whitehall criteria
- coronary disease
- CHD/coronary heart
- public health
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This study was supported by grant No. 121 from the National Research Council of Iran.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the ethical committee of the Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.