Dataset Information

Coronary risk assessment by point-based vs. equation-based Framingham models: significant implications for clinical care.

ABSTRACT: US cholesterol guidelines use original and simplified versions of the Framingham model to estimate future coronary risk and thereby classify patients into risk groups with different treatment strategies. We sought to compare risk estimates and risk group classification generated by the original, complex Framingham model and the simplified, point-based version.We assessed 2,543 subjects age 20-79 from the 2001-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for whom Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) guidelines recommend formal risk stratification. For each subject, we calculated the 10-year risk of major coronary events using the original and point-based Framingham models, and then compared differences in these risk estimates and whether these differences would place subjects into different ATP-III risk groups (<10% risk, 10-20% risk, or >20% risk). Using standard procedures, all analyses were adjusted for survey weights, clustering, and stratification to make our results nationally representative.Among 39 million eligible adults, the original Framingham model categorized 71% of subjects as having "moderate" risk (<10% risk of a major coronary event in the next 10 years), 22% as having "moderately high" (10-20%) risk, and 7% as having "high" (>20%) risk. Estimates of coronary risk by the original and point-based models often differed substantially. The point-based system classified 15% of adults (5.7 million) into different risk groups than the original model, with 10% (3.9 million) misclassified into higher risk groups and 5% (1.8 million) into lower risk groups, for a net impact of classifying 2.1 million adults into higher risk groups. These risk group misclassifications would impact guideline-recommended drug treatment strategies for 25-46% of affected subjects. Patterns of misclassifications varied significantly by gender, age, and underlying CHD risk.Compared to the original Framingham model, the point-based version misclassifies millions of Americans into risk groups for which guidelines recommend different treatment strategies.

SUBMITTER: Gordon WJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2947646 | biostudies-other | 2010 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Coronary risk assessment by point-based vs. equation-based Framingham models: significant implications for clinical care.

Gordon William J WJ Polansky Jesse M JM Boscardin W John WJ Fung Kathy Z KZ Steinman Michael A MA

Journal of general internal medicine 20100908 11

<h4>Background</h4>US cholesterol guidelines use original and simplified versions of the Framingham model to estimate future coronary risk and thereby classify patients into risk groups with different treatment strategies. We sought to compare risk estimates and risk group classification generated by the original, complex Framingham model and the simplified, point-based version.<h4>Methods</h4>We assessed 2,543 subjects age 20-79 from the 2001-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surve ...[more]

PMID: 20824362

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is currently utilized as the frontline test to accurately diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) in clinical practice, there are still debates regarding its use as a screening tool for the asymptomatic population. Using deep learning (DL), we sought to develop a prediction model for significant coronary artery stenosis on CCTA and identify the individuals who would benefit from undergoing CCTA among apparently healthy asymptomatic adults.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 11,180 individuals who underwent CCTA as part of routine health check-ups between 2012 and 2019. The main outcome was the presence of coronary artery stenosis of ≥70% on CCTA. We developed a prediction model using machine learning (ML), including DL. Its performance was compared with pretest probabilities, including the pooled cohort equation (PCE), CAD consortium, and updated Diamond-Forrester (UDF) scores.ResultsIn the cohort of 11,180 apparently healthy asymptomatic individuals (mean age 56.1 years; men 69.8%), 516 (4.6%) presented with significant coronary artery stenosis on CCTA. Among the ML methods employed, a neural network with multi-task learning (19 selected features), one of the DL methods, was selected due to its superior performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.782 and a high diagnostic accuracy of 71.6%. Our DL-based model demonstrated a better prediction than the PCE (AUC, 0.719), CAD consortium score (AUC, 0.696), and UDF score (AUC, 0.705). Age, sex, HbA1c, and HDL cholesterol were highly ranked features. Personal education and monthly income levels were also included as important features of the model.ConclusionWe successfully developed the neural network with multi-task learning for the detection of CCTA-derived stenosis of ≥70% in asymptomatic populations. Our findings suggest that this model may provide more precise indications for the use of CCTA as a screening tool to identify individuals at a higher risk, even in asymptomatic populations, in clinical practice.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough international guidelines recommend use of the Global Registries of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) to guide acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treatment decisions, the prospective utility of the GRS in improving care and outcomes is unproven.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of routine GRS implementation on guideline-indicated treatments and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with ACS.Design, setting, and participantsProspective cluster (hospital-level) randomized open-label blinded end point (PROBE) clinical trial using a multicenter ACS registry of acute care cardiology services. Fixed sampling of the first 10 patients within calendar month, with either ST-segment elevation or non-ST-segment elevation ACS. The study enrolled patients from June 2014 to March 2018, and data were analyzed between February 2020 and April 2020.InterventionsImplementation of routine risk stratification using the GRS and guideline recommendations.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a performance score based on receipt of early invasive treatment, discharge prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies, and cardiac rehabilitation referral. Clinical outcomes included a composite of all-cause death and/or myocardial infarction (MI) within 1 year.ResultsThis study enrolled 2318 patients from 24 hospitals and was stopped prematurely owing to futility. Of the patients enrolled, median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-74 years), 29.5% were women (n = 684), and 62.9% were considered high risk (n = 1433). Provision of all 3 measures among high-risk patients did not differ between the randomized arms (GRS: 424 of 717 [59.9%] vs control: 376 of 681 [55.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.63-1.71; P = .88). The provision of early invasive treatment was increased compared with the control arm (GRS: 1042 of 1135 [91.8%] vs control: 989 of 1183 [83.6%]; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.30-3.96; P = .004). Prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies (GRS: 864 of 1135 [76.7%] vs control: 893 of 1183 [77.5%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.38) and cardiac rehabilitation (GRS: 855 of 1135 [75.1%] vs control: 861 of 1183 [72.8%]; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.32-1.44) were not different. By 12 months, GRS intervention was not associated with a significant reduction in death or MI compared with the control group (GRS: 96 of 1044 [9.2%] vs control: 146 of 1087 [13.4%]; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-1.14).Conclusions and relevanceRoutine GRS implementation in cardiology services with high levels of clinical care was associated with an increase in early invasive treatment but not other aspects of care. Low event rates and premature study discontinuation indicates the need for further, larger scale randomized studies.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614000550606.

Dataset Information

Coronary risk assessment by point-based vs. equation-based Framingham models: significant implications for clinical care.

Publications

Coronary risk assessment by point-based vs. equation-based Framingham models: significant implications for clinical care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets