Peter Flueckiger1, Will Longstreth1, David Herrington1, Joseph Yeboah2. 1. From the Heart and Vascular Center of Excellence, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC (P.F., D.H., J.Y.); and Department of Neurology, University of Washington-Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA (W.L.). 2. From the Heart and Vascular Center of Excellence, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC (P.F., D.H., J.Y.); and Department of Neurology, University of Washington-Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA (W.L.). jyeboah@wakehealth.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Limited data exist on the performance of the revised Framingham Stroke Risk Score (R-FSRS) and the R-FSRS in conjunction with nontraditional risk markers. We compared the R-FSRS, original FSRS, and the Pooled Cohort Equation for stroke prediction and assessed the improvement in discrimination by nontraditional risk markers. METHODS: Six thousand seven hundred twelve of 6814 participants of the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) were included. Cox proportional hazard, area under the curve, net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination increment analysis were used to assess and compare each stroke prediction risk score. Stroke was defined as fatal/nonfatal strokes (hemorrhagic or ischemic). RESULTS: After mean follow-up of 10.7 years, 231 of 6712 (3.4%) strokes were adjudicated (2.7% ischemic strokes). Mean stroke risks using the R-FSRS, original FSRS, and Pooled Cohort Equation were 4.7%, 5.9%, and 13.5%. The R-FSRS had the best calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit, χ2=6.55; P=0.59). All risk scores were predictive of incident stroke. C statistics of R-FSRS (0.716) was similar to Pooled Cohort Equation (0.716), but significantly higher than the original FSRS (0.653; P=0.01 for comparison with R-FSRS). Adding nontraditional risk markers individually to the R-FSRS did not improve discrimination of the R-FSRS in the area under the curve analysis, but did improve category-less net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination increment for incident stroke. The addition of coronary artery calcium to R-FSRS produced the highest category-less net reclassification improvement (0.36) and integrated discrimination increment (0.0027). Similar results were obtained when ischemic strokes were used as the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The R-FSRS downgraded stroke risk but had better calibration and discriminative ability for incident stroke compared with the original FSRS. Nontraditional risk markers modestly improved the discriminative ability of the R-FSRS, with coronary artery calcium performing the best.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Limited data exist on the performance of the revised Framingham Stroke Risk Score (R-FSRS) and the R-FSRS in conjunction with nontraditional risk markers. We compared the R-FSRS, original FSRS, and the Pooled Cohort Equation for stroke prediction and assessed the improvement in discrimination by nontraditional risk markers. METHODS: Six thousand seven hundred twelve of 6814 participants of the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) were included. Cox proportional hazard, area under the curve, net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination increment analysis were used to assess and compare each stroke prediction risk score. Stroke was defined as fatal/nonfatal strokes (hemorrhagic or ischemic). RESULTS: After mean follow-up of 10.7 years, 231 of 6712 (3.4%) strokes were adjudicated (2.7% ischemic strokes). Mean stroke risks using the R-FSRS, original FSRS, and Pooled Cohort Equation were 4.7%, 5.9%, and 13.5%. The R-FSRS had the best calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit, χ2=6.55; P=0.59). All risk scores were predictive of incident stroke. C statistics of R-FSRS (0.716) was similar to Pooled Cohort Equation (0.716), but significantly higher than the original FSRS (0.653; P=0.01 for comparison with R-FSRS). Adding nontraditional risk markers individually to the R-FSRS did not improve discrimination of the R-FSRS in the area under the curve analysis, but did improve category-less net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination increment for incident stroke. The addition of coronary artery calcium to R-FSRS produced the highest category-less net reclassification improvement (0.36) and integrated discrimination increment (0.0027). Similar results were obtained when ischemic strokes were used as the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The R-FSRS downgraded stroke risk but had better calibration and discriminative ability for incident stroke compared with the original FSRS. Nontraditional risk markers modestly improved the discriminative ability of the R-FSRS, with coronary artery calcium performing the best.
Authors: J Jeffrey Carr; Jennifer Clark Nelson; Nathan D Wong; Michael McNitt-Gray; Yadon Arad; David R Jacobs; Stephan Sidney; Diane E Bild; O Dale Williams; Robert C Detrano Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Raphael Carandang; Sudha Seshadri; Alexa Beiser; Margaret Kelly-Hayes; Carlos S Kase; William B Kannel; Philip A Wolf Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-12-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael H Criqui; Robyn L McClelland; Mary M McDermott; Matthew A Allison; Roger S Blumenthal; Victor Aboyans; Joachim H Ix; Gregory L Burke; Kaing Liu; Steven Shea Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Janice M Bonsu; Avirup Guha; Lawrence Charles; Vedat O Yildiz; Lai Wei; Brandee Baker; Jonathan E Brammer; Farrukh Awan; Maryam Lustberg; Raquel Reinbolt; Eric D Miller; Hani Jneid; Patrick Ruz; Rebecca R Carter; Michael W Milks; Electra D Paskett; Daniel Addison Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David M Kent; Lester Y Leung; Eric J Puttock; Andy Y Wang; Patrick H Luetmer; David F Kallmes; Jason Nelson; Sunyang Fu; Chengyi Zheng; Ellen M Vickery; Hongfang Liu; Alastair J Noyce; Wansu Chen Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Samuel N Lockhart; Christopher L Schaich; Suzanne Craft; Bonnie C Sachs; Stephen R Rapp; Youngkyoo Jung; Christopher T Whitlow; Kiran Kumar Solingapuram Sai; Maryjo Cleveland; Benjamin J Williams; Gregory L Burke; Alain Bertoni; Kathleen M Hayden; Timothy M Hughes Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-09-05 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: David M Kent; Lester Y Leung; Yichen Zhou; Patrick H Luetmer; David F Kallmes; Jason Nelson; Sunyang Fu; Chengyi Zheng; Hongfang Liu; Wansu Chen Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: X Tang; D D Zhang; X F Liu; Q P Liu; Y Cao; N Li; S P Huang; H D Dou; P Gao; Y H Hu Journal: Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban Date: 2020-06-18
Authors: Nicholas A Marston; Parth N Patel; Steven A Lubitz; Marc S Sabatine; Christian T Ruff; Frederick K Kamanu; Francesco Nordio; Giorgio M Melloni; Carolina Roselli; Yared Gurmu; Lu-Chen Weng; Marc P Bonaca; Robert P Giugliano; Benjamin M Scirica; Michelle L O'Donoghue; Christopher P Cannon; Christopher D Anderson; Deepak L Bhatt; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Marc Cohen; Robert F Storey; Peter Sever; Anthony C Keech; Itamar Raz; Ofri Mosenzon; Elliott M Antman; Eugene Braunwald; Patrick T Ellinor Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Shahram Oveisgharan; Lei Yu; Ana Capuano; Zoe Arvanitakis; Lisa L Barnes; Julie A Schneider; David A Bennett; Aron S Buchman Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 10.170