The Role of HMG COA Reductase Inhibitors on the Progression of Coronary Artery Disease: Focus on Prediction Model

Open access


Currently, an integrated site-specific and patient-specific comprehensive predictive model of plaque progression in various CVD is not available. In this study, we considered medical records of 256 patients obtained within the EU H2020 SMARTool project which is carefully designed to collect the features from various domains relevant for disease which are used in everyday clinical practice. The database contains detailed information of patients with suspected CAD disease regarding the clinical status, risk factors, routine blood analyses, CAD morphology and progression and current therapy. Results showed that there was statistically significant difference of values of this parameter for the SMARTool patients with and without disease progression, measured at the follow-up, F(1,250)=33.39, p < 0.001, while the CAD Score in the follow-up is significantly different from the score measured at the initial time point, F(1,254)=76.244, p < 0.001. The significant interaction of statins is achieved with aspirin F(1,252)= 3.921, p=0.049, while interactions with other medicaments are insignificant for CAD Score. The results showed that there was no significant interaction of statins and dyslipidemia, F(1,251)=0.877, p = 0.350. Also, there was no significant interaction of statins and hypertension, F(1,245)=0.283, p=0.596. The CAD score in the baseline was significantly different among patients who were further prescribed with therapy than those who were not, and this trend remained unchanged after a given time period, i.e. those patients who were at risk had progression in addition to statins, but the combination of statins and aspirin was shown as effective in decreasing the CAD Score. The Random Forest classifier applied on 24 selected features is the most reliable among all tested ML algorithms for the prediction of CAD progress.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Teramukai S Okuda Y Miyazaki S Kawamori R Shirayama M Teramoto T. Dynamic prediction model and risk assessment chart for cardiovascular disease based on on-treatment blood pressure and baseline risk factors. Hypertens Res. 2016 Feb; 39(2):113-8. doi: 10.1038/hr.2015.120. Epub 2015 Nov 26. PubMed PMID: 26606874; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4753397.

  • 2. Reiner Z. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with statins in the elderly. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2014 Jul; 16(7):420.

  • 3. Titapiccolo JI Ferrario M Barbieri C Marcelli D Mari F Gatti E et al. Predictive modeling of cardiovascular complications in incident hemodialysis patients. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012; 2012:3943–6.

  • 4. Steyerberg EW Harrell FE Jr Borsboom GJ Eijkemans MJ Vergouwe Y Habbema JD. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 774–781.

  • 5. ESH/ESC Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension. 2013 Practice guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC): ESH/ESC Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension. J Hypertens 2013; 31: 1925–1938.

  • 6. Harrell FE Jr Lee KL Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models evaluating assumptions and adequacy and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996; 15: 361–387.

  • 7. Kononenko I. Kukar M. 2007. Machine Learning and Data Mining: Introduction to Principles and Algorithms. Horwood publm

  • 8. Maimon. O. Rokach L. 2005. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook Springer Heidelberg.

  • 9. De Graaf M. A. Broersen A. Ahmed W. Kitslaar P. H. Dijkstra J. Kroft L. J. Scholte A. J. 2014. Feasibility of an Automated Quantitative Computed Tomography Angiography–Derived Risk Score for Risk Stratification of Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease. The American Journal of Cardiology 113(12):1947–1955. doi:10.1016/j.ajcard.2014.03.034.

  • 10. Chawla N. Bowyer K. Hall L. Kegelmeyer W. 2002. SMOTE: Syntheticminority over-sampling technique. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 16:321–357

  • 11. Yijing L. Haixiang G. Xiao L. Yanan L. Jinling L. 2016. Adapted ensemble classification algorithm based on multiple classifier system and feature selection for classifying multi-class imbalanced data. Knowl.-Based Syst. 94:88-104.

  • 12. Robnik-Sikonja M. Kononenko I. 1997. An adaptation of Relief for attribute estimation in regression. In: Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning. 296-304.

  • 13. Peng H. Long F. Ding C. 2005. Feature Selection Based on Mutual Information: Criteria of Max-Dependency Max-Relevance and Min-Redundancy. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE 27 (8):1226-12 38.

  • 14. Kohavi R. John G. 1997. Wrapper for Feature Subset Selection. Artificial Intelligencel. 97 (1-2): 273-324. Doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00043-X.

  • 15. SMARTool EU Horizon 2020 project: Simulation Modeling of coronary ARTery disease: a tool for clinical decision support. Grant agreement ID: 689068 2016-2019.

  • 16. EVINCI EU FP7 Project: EValuation of INtegrated Cardiac Imaging. Grant agreement ID: 222915 2009-2012

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.13

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.118
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.079

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 27 27 12
PDF Downloads 22 22 16