| Literature DB >> 34882961 |
Nanxiang Ouyang1, Guangxiao Li2, Chang Wang1, Yingxian Sun1.
Abstract
Many assessments have been used to predict cardiovascular risks in the general population, but their applicability in patients with hypertension needs to be further evaluated. In the current study, a cardiovascular risk assessment model was constructed in a hypertensive population. This prospective cohort study was conducted with cardiovascular examinations in rural northeast China in 2012 and 2013, and followed up to collect cardiovascular events in 2015 and 2018. Data were derived from 4763 hypertensive patients who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline and completed follow-up. After lasso regression was used to screen for risk factors of CVD at baseline, a multivariate Cox regression risk model was established and a nomogram was developed. The model was validated using an independent test set (one third of data not used for model building). Among 4763 patients, 354 (7.43%) had a cardiovascular event during a median follow-up of 4.66 years. Nine risk factors were screened by lasso regression, including sex, age, current smoking, body mass index (BMI), history of transient ischemic attack (TIA), family history of hypertension, family history of stroke, physical labor intensity, and high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). The c-index of the CVD model was 0.707, and that of an updated model with baseline blood pressure was 0.732. In the validated cohort the respective c-indexes were 0.665 and 0.714. An assessment model of CVD risk was established in a hypertensive population which may provide an original prevention strategy for hypertensive populations in rural China, and further reduce the CVD burden.Entities:
Keywords: cardiovascular disease; hypertension; risk assessment model
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34882961 PMCID: PMC8783342 DOI: 10.1111/jch.14403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) ISSN: 1524-6175 Impact factor: 2.885
Comparison of basic characteristics between development cohort and validation cohort
| Basic characteristics | Development cohort No. (%) | Validation cohort No. (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 3176 | 1587 | |
| Age, year (SD) | 56.69 ± 10.22 | 56.00 ± 10.02 | .03 |
| 35∼44 | 445 (14.0) | 247 (15.6) | .07 |
| 45∼54 | 937 (29.5) | 480 (30.2) | |
| 55∼64 | 1141 (35.9) | 582 (36.7) | |
| 65∼ | 653 (20.6) | 278 (17.5) | |
| Sex | 0.87 | ||
| Male | 1587 (50.0) | 797 (50.2) | |
| Female | 1589 (50.0) | 790 (49.8) | |
| Current smoking | 1118 (35.2) | 595 (37.5) | .12 |
| Current drinking | 833 (26.2) | 423 (26.7) | .75 |
| BMI, kg/m2(SD) | 25.48 ± 3.56 | 25.58 ± 3.61 | .36 |
| Mean SBP | 158.35 ± 18.92 | 157.95 ± 19.32 | .50 |
| Mean DBP | 88.81 ± 11.08 | 88.93 ± 11.11 | .72 |
| Education | .44 | ||
| Illiterate | 353 (11.1) | 157 (9.9) | |
| Primary school | 1391 (43.8) | 693 (43.7) | |
| Junior high school | 1158 (36.5) | 584 (36.8) | |
| High school and above | 274 (8.6) | 153 (9.6) | |
| Diabetes | 472 (14.9) | 214 (13.5) | .18 |
| TIA | 101 (3.2) | 53 (3.3) | .77 |
| Family history of hypertension | 821 (25.9) | 389 (24.5) | .32 |
| Family history of stroke | 553 (17.4) | 299 (18.8) | .23 |
Values are shown as n (%).
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; TIA, transient ischemic attack; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure.
FIGURE 1Model A: Nomogram for predicting 2‐year and 4‐year cumulative incidence of CVD in a hypertensive population
FIGURE 2Calibration charts. (A, B) Calibration chart of 2‐year cumulative CVD risk prediction in the development cohort and the validation cohort (model A). (C, D) Calibration chart of 4‐year cumulative CVD risk prediction in the development cohort and the validation cohort (model A)
FIGURE 3Model B: Nomogram for predicting 2‐year and 4‐year cumulative incidence of CVD in a hypertensive population
FIGURE 4Calibration charts. (A, B) Calibration chart of 2‐year cumulative CVD risk prediction in the development cohort and the validation cohort (model B). (C, D) Calibration chart of 4‐year cumulative CVD risk prediction in the development cohort and the validation cohort (model B)
Indicators of comparison between the model A and the model B (NRI, IDI)
| Index | 2‐year cumulative CVD incidence | 4‐year cumulative CVD incidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Development cohort | Validation cohort | Development cohort | Validation cohort | |
| NRI (95%CI) | 0.473 (0.307, 0.682) | 0.448 (0.166, 0.757) | 0.376 (0.245, 0.524) | 0.318 (0.098, 0.514) |
| NRI+ (95%CI) | 0.018 (‐0.148, 0.232) | 0 (‐0.280, 0.311) | −0.079 (‐0.213, 0.062) | −0.126 (‐0.344, 0.075) |
| NRI‐ (95%CI) | 0.454 (0.426, 0.487) | 0.448 (0.403, 0.492) | 0.455 (0.426, 0.484) | 0.444 (0.398, 0.483) |
| IDI ( | 0.013 ( | 0.008 (0.01) | 0.022 ( | 0.015 ( |
Abbreviations: NRI, Net Reclassification Improvement; IDI, Integrated Discrimination Improvement.