Evaluation of the performance of existing non-laboratory based cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms

Jacob K Kariuki, Eileen M Stuart-Shor, Suzanne G Leveille, Laura L Hayman, Jacob K Kariuki, Eileen M Stuart-Shor, Suzanne G Leveille, Laura L Hayman

Abstract

Background: The high burden and rising incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in resource constrained countries necessitates implementation of robust and pragmatic primary and secondary prevention strategies. Many current CVD management guidelines recommend absolute cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment as a clinically sound guide to preventive and treatment strategies. Development of non-laboratory based cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms enable absolute risk assessment in resource constrained countries.The objective of this review is to evaluate the performance of existing non-laboratory based CV risk assessment algorithms using the benchmarks for clinically useful CV risk assessment algorithms outlined by Cooney and colleagues.

Methods: A literature search to identify non-laboratory based risk prediction algorithms was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Ovid Premier Nursing Journals Plus, and PubMed databases. The identified algorithms were evaluated using the benchmarks for clinically useful cardiovascular risk assessment algorithms outlined by Cooney and colleagues.

Results: Five non-laboratory based CV risk assessment algorithms were identified. The Gaziano and Framingham algorithms met the criteria for appropriateness of statistical methods used to derive the algorithms and endpoints. The Swedish Consultation, Framingham and Gaziano algorithms demonstrated good discrimination in derivation datasets. Only the Gaziano algorithm was externally validated where it had optimal discrimination. The Gaziano and WHO algorithms had chart formats which made them simple and user friendly for clinical application.

Conclusion: Both the Gaziano and Framingham non-laboratory based algorithms met most of the criteria outlined by Cooney and colleagues. External validation of the algorithms in diverse samples is needed to ascertain their performance and applicability to different populations and to enhance clinicians' confidence in them.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram. Outlines the literature search flow.

References

    1. Moser DK, Riegel B. Cardiac nursing: A companion to braunwald’s heart disease. St. Louis, Mo: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008. p. 1418.
    1. Mendis S, Lindholm LH, Anderson SG, Alwan A, Koju R, Onwubere BJ, Kayani AM, Abeysinghe N, Duneas A, Tabagari S, Fan W, Sarraf-Zadegan N, Nordet P, Whitworth J, Heagerty A. Total cardiovascular risk approach to improve efficiency of cardiovascular prevention in resource constrain settings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;13(12):1451–1462. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.02.001. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.02.001.
    1. World Health Organization. Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Cardiovascular risk. Geneva: WHO Press; 2007.
    1. Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, Dans T, Avezum A, Lanas F, McQueen M, Budaj A, Pais P, Varigos J, Lisheng L. INTERHEART Study Investigators. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): Case–control study. Lancet. 2004;13(9438):937–952. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17018-9.
    1. Stuckler D, King L, Robinson H, McKee M. WHO’s budgetary allocations and burden of disease: A comparative analysis. Lancet. 2008;13(9649):1563–1569. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61656-6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61656-6.
    1. Cooney MT, Dudina AL, Graham IM. Value and limitations of existing scores for the assessment of cardiovascular risk: A review for clinicians. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;13(14):1209–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.020. 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.020.
    1. Hayman LL, Helden L, Chyun DA, Braun LT. A life course approach to cardiovascular disease prevention. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011;13(4 Suppl):S22–S34. 10.1097/JCN.0b013e318213ef7f; 10.1097/JCN.0b013e318213ef7f.
    1. Lloyd-Jones DM. Cardiovascular risk prediction: Basic concepts, current status, and future directions. Circulation. 2010;13(15):1768–1777. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.849166. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.849166; 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.849166.
    1. Gaziano TA, Young CR, Fitzmaurice G, Atwood S, Gaziano JM. Laboratory-based versus non-laboratory-based method for assessment of cardiovascular disease risk: The NHANES I follow-up study cohort. Lancet. 2008;13(9616):923–931. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60418-3. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60418-3.
    1. Beswick AD, Brindle P, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. A systematic review of risk scoring methods and clinical decision aids used in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Royal College of General Practitioners [GRA] 2008. pp. 4–105. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 67S).
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;13(3):e123–e130.
    1. D’Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, Wolf PA, Cobain M, Massaro JM, Kannel WB. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: The Framingham heart study. Circulation. 2008;13(6):743–753. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.699579. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.699579.
    1. Pandya A, Weinstein MC, Gaziano TA. A comparative assessment of non-laboratory-based versus commonly used laboratory-based cardiovascular disease risk scores in the NHANES III population. PLoS One. 2011;13(5):e20416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020416. 10.1371/journal.pone.0020416; 10.1371/journal.pone.0020416.
    1. Mendis S, Lindholm LH, Mancia G, Whitworth J, Alderman M, Lim S, Heagerty T. World health organization (WHO) and international society of hypertension (ISH) risk prediction charts: Assessment of cardiovascular risk for prevention and control of cardiovascular disease in low and middle-income countries. J Hypertens. 2007;13(8):1578–1582. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282861fd3. 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282861fd3.
    1. Petersson U, Ostgren CJ, Brudin L, Nilsson PM. A consultation-based method is equal to SCORE and an extensive laboratory-based method in predicting risk of future cardiovascular disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2009;13(5):536–540. doi: 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32832b1833. 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32832b1833; 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32832b1833.
    1. May M, Lawlor DA, Brindle P, Patel R, Ebrahim S. Cardiovascular disease risk assessment in older women: can we improve on framingham? British women’s heart and health prospective cohort study. Heart. 2006;13(10):1396–1401. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2005.085381. 10.1136/hrt.2005.085381.
    1. Cox CS, Mussolino ME, Rothwell ST, Lane MA, Golden CD, Madans JH, Feldman JJ. Plan and operation of the NHANES I epidemiologic followup study, 1992. Vital Health Stat. 1997;13(35):1–231. 35.
    1. Dawber TR, Meadors GF, Moore FE Jr. Epidemiological approaches to heart disease: The Framingham study. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1951;13(3):279–281. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.41.3.279.
    1. Cooney MT, Dudina A, D’Agostino R, Graham IM. Cardiovascular risk-estimation systems in primary prevention: Do they differ? do they make a difference? Can we see the future? Circulation. 2010;13(3):300–310. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.852756. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.852756.
    1. Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PW, Kannel WB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J. 1991;13(1 Pt 2):293–298.
    1. Conroy RM, Pyörälä K, Fitzgerald AP, Sans S, Menotti A, De Backer G, De Bacquer D, Ducimetière P, Jousilahti P, Keil U, Njølstad I, Oganov RG, Thomsen T, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Tverdal A, Wedel H, Whincup P, Wilhelmsen L, Graham IM. The SCORE project. Eur Heart J. 2003;13(11):987–1003. doi: 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00114-3.
    1. Persson M, Carlberg B, Weinehall L, Nilsson L, Stegmayr B, Lindholm LH. Risk stratification by guidelines compared with risk assessment by risk equations applied to a MONICA sample. J Hypertens. 2003;13(6):1089–1095. doi: 10.1097/00004872-200306000-00008. 10.1097/01.hjh.0000059052.65882.e9.
    1. Yikona JI, Wallis EJ, Ramsay LE, Jackson PR. Coronary and cardiovascular risk estimation in uncomplicated mild hypertension. A comparison of risk assessment methods. J Hypertens. 2002;13(11):2173–2182. doi: 10.1097/00004872-200211000-00016.
    1. Isles CG, Ritchie LD, Murchie P, Norrie J. Risk assessment in primary prevention of coronary heart disease: Randomised comparison of three scoring methods. BMJ. 2000;13(7236):690–691. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7236.690.
    1. Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RBS, D’Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2008;13(2):157–172. doi: 10.1002/sim.2929. discussion 207–12. doi: 10.1002/sim.2929.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner