Jarrod E Dalton1,2, Michael B Rothberg1,3, Neal V Dawson4,5, Nikolas I Krieger2, David A Zidar6,7, Adam T Perzynski5. 1. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Center for Value-Based Care Research, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Center for Healthcare Research and Policy, Case Western Reserve University at MetroHealth, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk across heterogeneous populations is needed for effective primary prevention. Little is known about the performance of standard cardiovascular risk factors in older adults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) risk model, as well as the underlying cardiovascular risk factors, among adults older than 65 years. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort derived from a regional referral system's electronic medical records. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 25 349 patients who were 65 years or older at study baseline (date of the first outpatient lipid panel taken between 2007 and 2010). MEASUREMENTS: Exposures of interest were traditional cardiovascular risk factors, as defined by inclusion in the PCE model. The primary outcome was major ASCVD events, defined as a composite of myocardial infarctions, stroke, and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: The PCE and internally estimated models produced similar risk distributions for white men aged 65 to 74 years. For all other groups, PCE predictions were generally lower than those of the internal models, particularly for African Americans. Discrimination of the PCE was poor for all age groups, with concordance index (95% confidence interval) estimates of 0.62 (0.60-0.64), 0.56 (0.54-0.57), and 0.52 (0.49-0.54) among patients aged 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 years and older, respectively. Reestimating relationships within these age groups resulted in better calibration but negligible improvements in discrimination. Blood pressure, total cholesterol, and diabetes either were not associated at all or had inverse associations in the older age groups. CONCLUSION: Traditional clinical risk factors for cardiovascular disease failed to accurately characterize risk in a contemporary population of Medicare-aged patients. Among those aged 85 years and older, some traditional risk factors were not associated with ASCVD events. Better risk models are needed to appropriately inform treatment decision making for the growing population of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:754-761, 2020.
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk across heterogeneous populations is needed for effective primary prevention. Little is known about the performance of standard cardiovascular risk factors in older adults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) risk model, as well as the underlying cardiovascular risk factors, among adults older than 65 years. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort derived from a regional referral system's electronic medical records. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 25 349 patients who were 65 years or older at study baseline (date of the first outpatientlipid panel taken between 2007 and 2010). MEASUREMENTS: Exposures of interest were traditional cardiovascular risk factors, as defined by inclusion in the PCE model. The primary outcome was major ASCVD events, defined as a composite of myocardial infarctions, stroke, and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: The PCE and internally estimated models produced similar risk distributions for white men aged 65 to 74 years. For all other groups, PCE predictions were generally lower than those of the internal models, particularly for African Americans. Discrimination of the PCE was poor for all age groups, with concordance index (95% confidence interval) estimates of 0.62 (0.60-0.64), 0.56 (0.54-0.57), and 0.52 (0.49-0.54) among patients aged 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 years and older, respectively. Reestimating relationships within these age groups resulted in better calibration but negligible improvements in discrimination. Blood pressure, total cholesterol, and diabetes either were not associated at all or had inverse associations in the older age groups. CONCLUSION: Traditional clinical risk factors for cardiovascular disease failed to accurately characterize risk in a contemporary population of Medicare-aged patients. Among those aged 85 years and older, some traditional risk factors were not associated with ASCVD events. Better risk models are needed to appropriately inform treatment decision making for the growing population of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:754-761, 2020.
Authors: Peter W F Wilson; Tamar S Polonsky; Michael D Miedema; Amit Khera; Andrzej S Kosinski; Jeffrey T Kuvin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C Baigent; A Keech; P M Kearney; L Blackwell; G Buck; C Pollicino; A Kirby; T Sourjina; R Peto; R Collins; R Simes Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-09-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: H M Krumholz; T E Seeman; S S Merrill; C F Mendes de Leon; V Vaccarino; D I Silverman; R Tsukahara; A M Ostfeld; L F Berkman Journal: JAMA Date: 1994-11-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shelley A Sternberg; Netta Bentur; Chad Abrams; Tal Spalter; Tomas Karpati; John Lemberger; Anthony D Heymann Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 2.229
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: 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; John McNeil; Paul Lacaze Journal: Circ Genom Precis Med Date: 2021-12-24
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: Xiao Hu; Yejin Mok; Ning Ding; Kevin J Sullivan; Pamela L Lutsey; Jennifer A Schrack; Priya Palta; Kunihiro Matsushita Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Nadia M Chu; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Qian-Li Xue; Michelle C Carlson; A Richey Sharrett; Alden L Gross Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 6.591