Michiel H F Poorthuis1, Paul Sherliker2, Dylan R Morris2, M Sofia Massa3, Robert Clarke3, Natalie Staplin2, Sarah Lewington2, Gert J de Borst4, Richard Bulbulia5, Alison Halliday6. 1. Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; MRC Population Health Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; MRC Population Health Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 4. Department of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; MRC Population Health Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: richard.bulbulia@ctsu.ox.ac.uk. 6. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is associated with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Risk scores have been developed to detect individuals at high risk of ACS, thereby enabling targeted screening, but previous external validation showed scope for refinement of prediction by adding additional predictors. The aim of this study was to develop a novel risk score in a large contemporary screened population. METHODS: A prediction model was developed for moderate (≥50%) and severe (≥70%) ACS using data from 596 469 individuals who attended screening clinics. Variables that predicted the presence of ≥50% and ≥70% ACS independently were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping techniques. Discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) and agreement between predicted and observed cases using calibration plots. RESULTS: Predictors of ≥50% and ≥70% ACS were age, sex, current smoking, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack, coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, blood pressure, and blood lipids. Models discriminated between participants with and without ACS reliably, with an AUROC of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.78) for ≥ 50% ACS and 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.82) for ≥ 70% ACS. The number needed to screen in the highest decile of predicted risk to detect one case with ≥50% ACS was 13 and that of ≥70% ACS was 58. Targeted screening of the highest decile identified 41% of cases with ≥50% ACS and 51% with ≥70% ACS. CONCLUSION: The novel risk model predicted the prevalence of ACS reliably and performed better than previous models. Targeted screening among the highest decile of predicted risk identified around 40% of all cases with ≥50% ACS. Initiation or intensification of cardiovascular risk management in detected cases might help to reduce both carotid related ischaemic strokes and myocardial infarctions.
OBJECTIVE: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is associated with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Risk scores have been developed to detect individuals at high risk of ACS, thereby enabling targeted screening, but previous external validation showed scope for refinement of prediction by adding additional predictors. The aim of this study was to develop a novel risk score in a large contemporary screened population. METHODS: A prediction model was developed for moderate (≥50%) and severe (≥70%) ACS using data from 596 469 individuals who attended screening clinics. Variables that predicted the presence of ≥50% and ≥70% ACS independently were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping techniques. Discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) and agreement between predicted and observed cases using calibration plots. RESULTS: Predictors of ≥50% and ≥70% ACS were age, sex, current smoking, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack, coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, blood pressure, and blood lipids. Models discriminated between participants with and without ACS reliably, with an AUROC of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.78) for ≥ 50% ACS and 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.82) for ≥ 70% ACS. The number needed to screen in the highest decile of predicted risk to detect one case with ≥50% ACS was 13 and that of ≥70% ACS was 58. Targeted screening of the highest decile identified 41% of cases with ≥50% ACS and 51% with ≥70% ACS. CONCLUSION: The novel risk model predicted the prevalence of ACS reliably and performed better than previous models. Targeted screening among the highest decile of predicted risk identified around 40% of all cases with ≥50% ACS. Initiation or intensification of cardiovascular risk management in detected cases might help to reduce both carotid related ischaemic strokes and myocardial infarctions.
Authors: Thomas G Brott; Jonathan L Halperin; Suhny Abbara; J Michael Bacharach; John D Barr; Ruth L Bush; Christopher U Cates; Mark A Creager; Susan B Fowler; Gary Friday; Vicki S Hertzberg; E Bruce McIff; Wesley S Moore; Peter D Panagos; Thomas S Riles; Robert H Rosenwasser; Allen J Taylor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marjolein de Weerd; Jacoba P Greving; Bo Hedblad; Matthias W Lorenz; Ellisiv B Mathiesen; Daniel H O'Leary; Maria Rosvall; Matthias Sitzer; Erik Buskens; Michiel L Bots Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-04-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: A R Naylor; J-B Ricco; G J de Borst; S Debus; J de Haro; A Halliday; G Hamilton; J Kakisis; S Kakkos; S Lepidi; H S Markus; D J McCabe; J Roy; H Sillesen; J C van den Berg; F Vermassen; P Kolh; N Chakfe; R J Hinchliffe; I Koncar; J S Lindholt; M Vega de Ceniga; F Verzini; J Archie; S Bellmunt; A Chaudhuri; M Koelemay; A-K Lindahl; F Padberg; M Venermo Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: James F Meschia; Cheryl Bushnell; Bernadette Boden-Albala; Lynne T Braun; Dawn M Bravata; Seemant Chaturvedi; Mark A Creager; Robert H Eckel; Mitchell S V Elkind; Myriam Fornage; Larry B Goldstein; Steven M Greenberg; Susanna E Horvath; Costantino Iadecola; Edward C Jauch; Wesley S Moore; John A Wilson Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Alison Halliday; Michael Harrison; Elizabeth Hayter; Xiangling Kong; Averil Mansfield; Joanna Marro; Hongchao Pan; Richard Peto; John Potter; Kazem Rahimi; Angela Rau; Steven Robertson; Jonathan Streifler; Dafydd Thomas Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-09-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bertine M B Goessens; Frank L J Visseren; L Jaap Kappelle; Ale Algra; Yolanda van der Graaf Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Joseph Kamtchum-Tatuene; Luca Saba; Mirjam R Heldner; Michiel H F Poorthuis; Gert J de Borst; Tatjana Rundek; Stavros K Kakkos; Seemant Chaturvedi; Raffi Topakian; Joseph F Polak; Glen C Jickling Journal: Circ Res Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 23.213