Michael G Nanna1, Eric D Peterson2, Daniel Wojdyla2, Ann Marie Navar2. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. michael.nanna@duke.edu. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ACC/AHA guidelines for primary prevention rely on the Pooled Cohort Risk Equations (PCE) risk estimates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to guide treatment decisions. In light of the PCE being derived in younger populations, their accuracy in older adults is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive accuracy and calibration of the PCE in older individuals. DESIGN AND SETTING: We estimated CVD predicted and observed risk among individuals from four large prospective cohort studies: Cardiovascular Health Study, Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, Framingham Original, and Framingham Offspring. PARTICIPANTS: 12,527 overall individuals without ASCVD, including 9864 individuals aged 40-74 years and 2663 aged ≥75 years. MEASUREMENTS: We examined the operating characteristics of the PCE to estimate 5-year risk of stroke, MI, and CHD death overall and by age and sex strata. The associations between individual components of the PCE and cardiovascular events by age group (≥75 vs 40-74 years) were also evaluated. RESULTS: The PCE had low discrimination for 5-year ASCVD risk in older (≥75 years) (c-statistic = 0.62, 95% CI 0.60-0.65) vs. younger (40-74 years) adults (c-statistic = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.76). Calibration of the PCE was suboptimal in both older and younger adults, overestimating risk in the highest risk groups. Performance of the PCE in older adults was similarly poor when stratified by sex and age ≥ 80 years. LIMITATIONS: Since the PCE were derived from similar cohorts, though using different age groups and exams, this analysis likely overestimates the performance of the PCE. CONCLUSION: The performance of the PCE for ASCVD risk estimation in older adults is suboptimal; new models to effectively risk-stratify older adults are needed.
BACKGROUND: The ACC/AHA guidelines for primary prevention rely on the Pooled Cohort Risk Equations (PCE) risk estimates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to guide treatment decisions. In light of the PCE being derived in younger populations, their accuracy in older adults is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive accuracy and calibration of the PCE in older individuals. DESIGN AND SETTING: We estimated CVD predicted and observed risk among individuals from four large prospective cohort studies: Cardiovascular Health Study, Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, Framingham Original, and Framingham Offspring. PARTICIPANTS: 12,527 overall individuals without ASCVD, including 9864 individuals aged 40-74 years and 2663 aged ≥75 years. MEASUREMENTS: We examined the operating characteristics of the PCE to estimate 5-year risk of stroke, MI, and CHD death overall and by age and sex strata. The associations between individual components of the PCE and cardiovascular events by age group (≥75 vs 40-74 years) were also evaluated. RESULTS: The PCE had low discrimination for 5-year ASCVD risk in older (≥75 years) (c-statistic = 0.62, 95% CI 0.60-0.65) vs. younger (40-74 years) adults (c-statistic = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.76). Calibration of the PCE was suboptimal in both older and younger adults, overestimating risk in the highest risk groups. Performance of the PCE in older adults was similarly poor when stratified by sex and age ≥ 80 years. LIMITATIONS: Since the PCE were derived from similar cohorts, though using different age groups and exams, this analysis likely overestimates the performance of the PCE. CONCLUSION: The performance of the PCE for ASCVD risk estimation in older adults is suboptimal; new models to effectively risk-stratify older adults are needed.
Authors: Axel Schmermund; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Andreas Stang; Dietrich Grönemeyer; Rainer Seibel; Herbert Hirche; Klaus Mann; Winfried Siffert; Karl Lauterbach; Johannes Siegrist; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Raimund Erbel Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson; Harmon S Jordan; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Scott M Grundy; Neil J Stone; Alison L Bailey; Craig Beam; Kim K Birtcher; Roger S Blumenthal; Lynne T Braun; Sarah de Ferranti; Joseph Faiella-Tommasino; Daniel E Forman; Ronald Goldberg; Paul A Heidenreich; Mark A Hlatky; Daniel W Jones; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Nuria Lopez-Pajares; Chiadi E Ndumele; Carl E Orringer; Carmen A Peralta; Joseph J Saseen; Sidney C Smith; Laurence Sperling; Salim S Virani; Joseph Yeboah Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ann Marie Navar-Boggan; Eric D Peterson; Ralph B D'Agostino; Michael J Pencina; Allan D Sniderman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ronald G Victor; Robert W Haley; DuWayne L Willett; Ronald M Peshock; Patrice C Vaeth; David Leonard; Mujeeb Basit; Richard S Cooper; Vincent G Iannacchione; Wendy A Visscher; Jennifer M Staab; Helen H Hobbs Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Charlotte Andersson; Danielle Enserro; Martin G Larson; Vanessa Xanthakis; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Andrew Paul DeFilippis; Rebekah Young; John W McEvoy; Erin D Michos; Veit Sandfort; Richard A Kronmal; Robyn L McClelland; Michael J Blaha Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: B Mihaylova; J Emberson; L Blackwell; A Keech; J Simes; E H Barnes; M Voysey; A Gray; R Collins; C Baigent Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jarrod E Dalton; Michael B Rothberg; Neal V Dawson; Nikolas I Krieger; David A Zidar; Adam T Perzynski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Vlad C Vasile; Jeffrey W Meeusen; Jose R Medina Inojosa; Leslie J Donato; Christopher G Scott; Meredith S Hyun; Manlio Vinciguerra; Richard R Rodeheffer; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez; Allan S Jaffe Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Johannes T Neumann; Moeen Riaz; Andrew Bakshi; Galina Polekhina; Le T P Thao; Mark R Nelson; Robyn L Woods; Gad Abraham; Michael Inouye; Christopher M Reid; Andrew M Tonkin; Jeff D Williamson; Geoffrey A Donnan; Amy Brodtmann; Geoffrey C Cloud; John J McNeil; Paul Lacaze Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: Jyoti Sharma; Jan McAlister; Niti R Aggarwal; Janet Wei; Puja K Mehta; Odayme Quesada; Deirdre Mattina; Nandita S Scott; Erin D Michos; Zainab Mahmoud; Karla Kurrelmeyer; Glaucia Maria Moraes De Oliveira; Kathryn J Lindley Journal: Am J Prev Cardiol Date: 2022-03-13