de La Harpe Roxane, Marques-Vidal Pedro, Vaucher Julien
{"title":"2023年美国心脏协会预测动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病事件风险方程的外部验证,并与2021年系统冠状动脉风险评估和2013年合并队列方程进行比较。","authors":"de La Harpe Roxane, Marques-Vidal Pedro, Vaucher Julien","doi":"10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>External validation of the new 10-year PREVENT risk score for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is important to assess its potential clinical applicability in Switzerland and to highlight its influence in preventive treatment eligibility.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>This study, which was not used in the development process of PREVENT, included 5064 individuals from a prospective Swiss cohort, aged 40 or older, without pre-existing ASCVD, and with complete data for risk score calculation. Main outcomes were adjudicated ASCVD events, including fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and strokes. The performances of the PREVENT score were assessed overall, and stratified by gender and age groups (<70 vs. ≥70 years), and compared with SCORE2 and the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) scores. Among 4356 participants followed from 2009 to 2012 over a median of 9 years, 224 experienced a first incident of ASCVD. The PREVENT cardiovascular risk prediction model demonstrated adequate discrimination performance, correctly identifying 76% of concordant pairs [C-Index, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.79]. The model's calibration performances suggest systematic underestimation (Observed/Expected ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.44-1.46), especially in women and those under 70 years old, yet it maintained positive clinical utility across all subgroups, particularly at the 7.5% threshold, which is the lower limit of the intermediate-risk category in clinical practice. However, PREVENT did not improve predictive performance when compared with SCORE2 and PCE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study confirmed the PREVENT model demonstrated adequate discrimination and calibration capabilities, along with significant clinical utility, particularly at intermediate-risk thresholds. However, it did not outperform the established models, SCORE2 or PCE. Additionally, PREVENT may systematically underestimate risk, which could raise concerns about the underprescription of preventive treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":12051,"journal":{"name":"European journal of preventive cardiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External validation of the 2023 American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs equations for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in primary cardiovascular prevention setting and comparison with 2021 Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation and 2013 Pooled Cohort Equations.\",\"authors\":\"de La Harpe Roxane, Marques-Vidal Pedro, Vaucher Julien\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf213\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>External validation of the new 10-year PREVENT risk score for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is important to assess its potential clinical applicability in Switzerland and to highlight its influence in preventive treatment eligibility.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>This study, which was not used in the development process of PREVENT, included 5064 individuals from a prospective Swiss cohort, aged 40 or older, without pre-existing ASCVD, and with complete data for risk score calculation. Main outcomes were adjudicated ASCVD events, including fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and strokes. The performances of the PREVENT score were assessed overall, and stratified by gender and age groups (<70 vs. ≥70 years), and compared with SCORE2 and the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) scores. Among 4356 participants followed from 2009 to 2012 over a median of 9 years, 224 experienced a first incident of ASCVD. The PREVENT cardiovascular risk prediction model demonstrated adequate discrimination performance, correctly identifying 76% of concordant pairs [C-Index, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.79]. The model's calibration performances suggest systematic underestimation (Observed/Expected ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.44-1.46), especially in women and those under 70 years old, yet it maintained positive clinical utility across all subgroups, particularly at the 7.5% threshold, which is the lower limit of the intermediate-risk category in clinical practice. However, PREVENT did not improve predictive performance when compared with SCORE2 and PCE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study confirmed the PREVENT model demonstrated adequate discrimination and calibration capabilities, along with significant clinical utility, particularly at intermediate-risk thresholds. However, it did not outperform the established models, SCORE2 or PCE. Additionally, PREVENT may systematically underestimate risk, which could raise concerns about the underprescription of preventive treatments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of preventive cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of preventive cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf213\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of preventive cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf213","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
External validation of the 2023 American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs equations for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in primary cardiovascular prevention setting and comparison with 2021 Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation and 2013 Pooled Cohort Equations.
Aims: External validation of the new 10-year PREVENT risk score for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is important to assess its potential clinical applicability in Switzerland and to highlight its influence in preventive treatment eligibility.
Methods and results: This study, which was not used in the development process of PREVENT, included 5064 individuals from a prospective Swiss cohort, aged 40 or older, without pre-existing ASCVD, and with complete data for risk score calculation. Main outcomes were adjudicated ASCVD events, including fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and strokes. The performances of the PREVENT score were assessed overall, and stratified by gender and age groups (<70 vs. ≥70 years), and compared with SCORE2 and the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) scores. Among 4356 participants followed from 2009 to 2012 over a median of 9 years, 224 experienced a first incident of ASCVD. The PREVENT cardiovascular risk prediction model demonstrated adequate discrimination performance, correctly identifying 76% of concordant pairs [C-Index, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.79]. The model's calibration performances suggest systematic underestimation (Observed/Expected ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.44-1.46), especially in women and those under 70 years old, yet it maintained positive clinical utility across all subgroups, particularly at the 7.5% threshold, which is the lower limit of the intermediate-risk category in clinical practice. However, PREVENT did not improve predictive performance when compared with SCORE2 and PCE.
Conclusion: Our study confirmed the PREVENT model demonstrated adequate discrimination and calibration capabilities, along with significant clinical utility, particularly at intermediate-risk thresholds. However, it did not outperform the established models, SCORE2 or PCE. Additionally, PREVENT may systematically underestimate risk, which could raise concerns about the underprescription of preventive treatments.
期刊介绍:
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology (EJPC) is an official journal of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC). The journal covers a wide range of scientific, clinical, and public health disciplines related to cardiovascular disease prevention, risk factor management, cardiovascular rehabilitation, population science and public health, and exercise physiology. The categories covered by the journal include classical risk factors and treatment, lifestyle risk factors, non-modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular conditions, concomitant pathological conditions, sport cardiology, diagnostic tests, care settings, epidemiology, pharmacology and pharmacotherapy, machine learning, and artificial intelligence.