Literature DB >> 21947629

Effects of additional blood pressure and lipid measurements on the prediction of cardiovascular risk.

Katy Bell1, Andrew Hayen, Kevin McGeechan, Bruce Neal, Les Irwig.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that decisions to start preventative therapy for cardiovascular disease (CVD) should be based on absolute risk; however, current risk equations are based on single measurements of risk factors. We aimed to assess whether two measurements of blood pressure and lipids improves the prediction of cardiovascular risk compared to one measurement. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We used sex-specific Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate the risk of first CVD event in 2385 participants of the Framingham Offspring Study attending both the second and third visits. We estimated the effects on risk prediction of using the average of two measurements of blood pressure, total cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol compared to using one measurement of the risk factors. We found that these risk factors were each markedly more predictive of CVD when the average of two measurements was used rather than one measurement and age was less predictive of CVD. There were small improvements in the overall model fit, discrimination, and calibration. Reclassification also showed small improvements across the risk spectrum (net reclassification information, NRI, for women 3.0%, 95% CI -0.9 to 24.8%; NRI for men 4.0%, 95% CI -2.2 to 14.1%) and possibly greater improvements for intermediate-risk individuals (NRI for women 32.3%, 95% CI -21.9 to 46.8%; NRI for men 16.0%, 95% CI -3.3 to 43%).
CONCLUSIONS: Averaging two measurements of blood pressure and lipids results in marked increases in the predictiveness of these risk factors and smaller improvements in the overall prediction of cardiovascular risk including reclassification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21947629     DOI: 10.1177/1741826711424494

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Prev Cardiol        ISSN: 2047-4873            Impact factor:   7.804


  8 in total

Review 1.  New risk markers for cardiovascular prevention.

Authors:  Guy G De Backer
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 5.113

2.  Cardiovascular risk-factor knowledge and risk perception among HIV-infected adults.

Authors:  Patricia A Cioe; Sybil L Crawford; Michael D Stein
Journal:  J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 1.354

3.  Cholesterol and Hypertension Treatment Improve Coronary Risk Prediction but Not Time-Dependent Covariates or Competing Risks.

Authors:  Isaac Subirana; Anna Camps-Vilaró; Roberto Elosua; Jaume Marrugat; Helena Tizón-Marcos; Ivan Palomo; Irene R Dégano
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2022-10-11       Impact factor: 5.814

4.  Long-Term Exposure to Elevated Systolic Blood Pressure in Predicting Incident Cardiovascular Disease: Evidence From Large-Scale Routine Electronic Health Records.

Authors:  Jose Roberto Ayala Solares; Dexter Canoy; Francesca Elisa Diletta Raimondi; Yajie Zhu; Abdelaali Hassaine; Gholamreza Salimi-Khorshidi; Jenny Tran; Emma Copland; Mariagrazia Zottoli; Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes; Milad Nazarzadeh; Kazem Rahimi
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 5.501

5.  Long-term prediction of major coronary or ischaemic stroke event in a low-incidence Southern European population: model development and evaluation of clinical utility.

Authors:  Giovanni Veronesi; Francesco Gianfagna; Lloyd E Chambless; Simona Giampaoli; Giuseppe Mancia; Giancarlo Cesana; Marco M Ferrario
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Ambulatory blood pressure adds little to Framingham Risk Score for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older men: secondary analysis of observational study data.

Authors:  Katy J L Bell; Elaine Beller; Johan Sundström; Kevin McGeechan; Andrew Hayen; Les Irwig; Bruce Neal; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Prognostic impact of systolic blood pressure variability in people with diabetes.

Authors:  Katy J L Bell; Lamiae Azizi; Peter M Nilsson; Andrew Hayen; Les Irwig; Carl J Östgren; Johan Sundröm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The potential for overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis because of blood pressure variability: a comparison of the 2017 ACC/AHA, 2018 ESC/ESH and 2019 NICE hypertension guidelines.

Authors:  Katy Bell; Jenny Doust; Kevin McGeechan; Andrea Rita Horvath; Alexandra Barratt; Andrew Hayen; Christopher Semsarian; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 4.776

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.