A phenomapping-derived tool to personalize the selection of anatomical vs. functional testing in evaluating chest pain (ASSIST)

Coronary artery disease is frequently diagnosed following evaluation of stable chest pain with anatomical or functional testing. A more granular understanding of patient phenotypes that benefit from either strategy may enable personalized testing.

Using participant-level data from 9572 patients undergoing anatomical (n = 4734) vs. functional (n = 4838) testing in the PROMISE (PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial, we created a topological representation of the study population based on 57 pre-randomization variables. Within each patient’s 5% topological neighbourhood, Cox regression models provided individual patient-centred hazard ratios for major adverse cardiovascular events and revealed marked heterogeneity across the phenomap [median 1.11 (10th to 90th percentile: 0.52–2.61]), suggestive of distinct phenotypic neighbourhoods favouring anatomical or functional testing. Based on this risk phenomap, we employed an extreme gradient boosting algorithm in 80% of the PROMISE population to predict the personalized benefit of anatomical vs. functional testing using 12 model-derived, routinely collected variables and created a decision support tool named ASSIST (Anatomical vs. Stress teSting decIsion Support Tool). In both the remaining 20% of PROMISE and an external validation set consisting of patients from SCOT-HEART (Scottish COmputed Tomography of the HEART Trial) undergoing anatomical-first vs. functional-first assessment, the testing strategy recommended by ASSIST was associated with a significantly lower incidence of each study's primary endpoint (P = 0.0024 and P = 0.0321 for interaction, respectively), as well as a harmonized endpoint of all-cause mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction (P = 0.0309 and P < 0.0001 for interaction, respectively).

We propose a novel phenomapping-derived decision support tool to standardize the selection of anatomical vs. functional testing in the evaluation of stable chest pain, validated in two large and geographically diverse clinical trial populations.