Dataset Information

Comparing Risk Scores in the Prediction of Coronary and Cardiovascular Deaths: Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study compared risk discrimination for the prediction of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths for the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) Risk Score (with and without coronary artery calcium [CAC]), and of simple addition of CAC to the PCE.

Background

The PCE predict 10-year risk of atherosclerotic CVD events, and the MESA Risk Score predicts risk of CHD. Their comparative performance for the prediction of fatal events is poorly understood.

Methods

We evaluated 53,487 patients ages 45 to 79 years from the CAC Consortium, a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic individuals referred for clinical CAC scoring. Risk discrimination was measured using C-statistics.

Results

Mean age was 57 years, 35% were women, and 39% had CAC of 0. There were 421 CHD and 775 CVD deaths over a mean 12-year follow-up. In the overall study population, discrimination with the MESA Risk Score with CAC and the PCE was almost identical for both outcomes (C-statistics: 0.80 and 0.79 for CHD death, 0.77 and 0.78 for CVD death, respectively). Addition of CAC to the PCE improved risk discrimination, yielding the largest C-statistics. The MESA Risk Score with CAC and the PCE plus CAC showed the best discrimination among the 45% of patients with 5% to 20% estimated risk. Secondary analyses by estimated CVD risk strata showed modestly improved risk discrimination with CAC also among low- and high-estimated risk groups.

Conclusions

Our findings support the current guideline recommendation to use, among available risk scores, the PCE for initial risk assessment and to use CAC for further risk assessment in a broad borderline and intermediate risk group. Also, in select individuals at low or high estimated risk, CAC modestly improved discrimination. Studies in unselected populations will lead to further understanding of the potential value of tools combining risk scores and CAC for optimal risk assessment.

SUBMITTER: Blaha MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7343587 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study assessed the utility of the pooled cohort equation (PCE) and/or coronary artery calcium (CAC) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk assessment in smokers, especially those who were lung cancer screening eligible (LCSE). BACKGROUND:The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services currently pays for annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography scans in a specified group of cigarette smokers. CAC can be obtained from these low-dose scans. The incremental utility of CAC for ASCVD risk stratification remains unclear in this high-risk group. METHODS:Of 6,814 MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) participants, 3,356 (49.2% of total cohort) were smokers (2,476 former and 880 current), and 14.3% were LCSE. Kaplan-Meier, Cox proportional hazards, area under the curve, and net reclassification improvement (NRI) analyses were used to assess the association between PCE and/or CAC and incident ASCVD. Incident ASCVD was defined as coronary death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or fatal or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS:Smokers had a mean age of 62.1 years, 43.5% were female, and all had a mean of 23.0 pack-years of smoking. The LCSE sample had a mean age of 65.3 years, 39.1% were female, and all had a mean of 56.7 pack-years of smoking. After a mean of 11.1 years of follow-up 13.4% of all smokers and 20.8% of LCSE smokers had ASCVD events; 6.7% of all smokers and 14.2% of LCSE smokers with CAC = 0 had an ASCVD event during the follow-up. One SD increase in the PCE 10-year risk was associated with a 68% increase risk for ASCVD events in all smokers (hazard ratio: 1.68; 95% confidence interval: 1.57 to 1.80) and a 22% increase in risk for ASCVD events in the LCSE smokers (hazard ratio: 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.47). CAC was associated with increased ASCVD risk in all smokers and in LCSE smokers in all the Cox models. The C-statistic of the PCE for ASCVD was higher in all smokers compared with LCSE smokers (0.693 vs. 0.545). CAC significantly improved the C-statistics of the PCE in all smokers but not in LCSE smokers. The event and nonevent net reclassification improvements for all smokers and LCSE smokers were 0.018 and -0.126 versus 0.16 and -0.196, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In this well-characterized, multiethnic U.S. cohort, CAC was predictive of ASCVD in all smokers and in LCSE smokers but modestly improved discrimination over and beyond the PCE. However, 6.7% of all smokers and 14.2% of LCSE smokers with CAC = 0 had an ASCVD event during follow-up.