Evaluation of Newer Risk Markers for Coronary Heart Disease Risk Classification
Top Cited Papers
- 20 March 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 156 (6), 438-444
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-6-201203200-00006
Abstract
Whether newer risk markers for coronary heart disease (CHD) improve CHD risk prediction remains unclear. To assess whether newer risk markers for CHD risk prediction and stratification improve Framingham risk score (FRS) predictions. Prospective population-based study. The Rotterdam Study, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5933 asymptomatic, community-dwelling participants (mean age, 69.1 years [SD, 8.5]). Traditional CHD risk factors used in the FRS (age, sex, systolic blood pressure, treatment of hypertension, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, smoking, and diabetes) and newer CHD risk factors (N-terminal fragment of prohormone B-type natriuretic peptide levels, von Willebrand factor antigen levels, fibrinogen levels, chronic kidney disease, leukocyte count, C-reactive protein levels, homocysteine levels, uric acid levels, coronary artery calcium [CAC] scores, carotid intima–media thickness, peripheral arterial disease, and pulse wave velocity). Adding CAC scores to the FRS improved the accuracy of risk predictions (c-statistic increase, 0.05 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.06]; net reclassification index, 19.3% overall [39.3% in those at intermediate risk, by FRS]). Levels of N-terminal fragment of prohormone B-type natriuretic peptide also improved risk predictions but to a lesser extent (c-statistic increase, 0.02 [CI, 0.01 to 0.04]; net reclassification index, 7.6% overall [33.0% in those at intermediate risk, by FRS]). Improvements in predictions with other newer markers were marginal. The findings may not be generalizable to younger or nonwhite populations. Among 12 CHD risk markers, improvements in FRS predictions were most statistically and clinically significant with the addition of CAC scores. Further investigation is needed to assess whether risk refinements using CAC scores lead to a meaningful change in clinical outcome. Whether to use CAC score screening as a more routine test for risk prediction requires full consideration of the financial and clinical costs of performing versus not performing the test for both persons and health systems. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw)Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Rotterdam Study: 2012 objectives and design updateEuropean Journal of Epidemiology, 2011
- Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkersStatistics in Medicine, 2010
- Coronary Artery Calcium Score and Risk Classification for Coronary Heart Disease PredictionJAMA, 2010
- Carotid Intima-Media Thickness and Presence or Absence of Plaque Improves Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Risk: The ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) StudyJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2010
- Arterial Stiffness and Cardiovascular EventsCirculation, 2010
- Assessing the Performance of Prediction ModelsEpidemiology, 2010
- Criteria for Evaluation of Novel Markers of Cardiovascular RiskCirculation, 2009
- C-Reactive Protein and Reclassification of Cardiovascular Risk in the Framingham Heart StudyCirculation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 2008
- Relative Value of Inflammatory, Hemostatic, and Rheological Factors for Incident Myocardial Infarction and StrokeCirculation, 2007
- Characteristics and Baseline Clinical Predictors of Future Fatal Versus Nonfatal Coronary Heart Disease Events in Older AdultsCirculation, 2006