Suppr超能文献

用其他心血管疾病风险评分取代合并队列方程对动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病风险评估的影响(来自动脉粥样硬化多民族研究 [MESA])

Impact of Replacing the Pooled Cohort Equation With Other Cardiovascular Disease Risk Scores on Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment (from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis [MESA]).

作者信息

Qureshi Waqas T, Michos Erin D, Flueckiger Peter, Blaha Michael, Sandfort Veit, Herrington David M, Burke Gregory, Yeboah Joseph

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Heart and Vascular Center of Excellence, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina.

Department of Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, Maryland.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 2016 Sep 1;118(5):691-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.06.015. Epub 2016 Jun 15.

Abstract

The increase in statin eligibility by the new cholesterol guidelines is mostly driven by the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) criterion (≥7.5% 10-year PCE). The impact of replacing the PCE with either the modified Framingham Risk Score (FRS) or the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) on assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk assessment and statin eligibility remains unknown. We assessed the comparative benefits of using the PCE, FRS, and SCORE for ASCVD risk assessment in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Of 6,815 participants, 654 (mean age 61.4 ± 10.3; 47.1% men; 37.1% whites; 27.2% blacks; 22.3% Hispanics; 12.0% Chinese-Americans) were included in analysis. Area under the curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis were used to compare the 3 risk scores. Decision curve analysis is the plot of net benefit versus probability thresholds; net benefit = true positive rate - (false positive rate × weighting factor). Weighting factor = Threshold probability/1 - threshold probability. After a median of 8.6 years, 342 (6.0%) ASCVD events (myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, fatal or nonfatal stroke) occurred. All 4 risk scores had acceptable discriminative ability for incident ASCVD events; (AUC [95% CI] PCE: 0.737 [0.713 to 0.762]; FRS: 0.717 [0.691 to 0.743], SCORE (high risk) 0.722 [0.696 to 0.747], and SCORE (low risk): 0.721 [0.696 to 0.746]. At the ASCVD risk threshold recommended for statin eligibility for primary prevention (≥7.5%), the PCE provides the best net benefit. Replacing the PCE with the SCORE (high), SCORE (low) and FRS results in a 2.9%, 8.9%, and 17.1% further increase in statin eligibility. The PCE has the best discrimination and net benefit for primary ASCVD risk assessment in a US-based multiethnic cohort compared with the SCORE or the FRS.

摘要

新的胆固醇指南中他汀类药物适用人群的增加主要是由汇总队列方程(PCE)标准(10年PCE≥7.5%)驱动的。用改良的弗明汉风险评分(FRS)或系统性冠状动脉风险评估(SCORE)取代PCE对动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病(ASCVD)风险评估和他汀类药物适用资格的影响尚不清楚。我们在动脉粥样硬化多民族研究中评估了使用PCE、FRS和SCORE进行ASCVD风险评估的相对益处。在6815名参与者中,654人(平均年龄61.4±10.3岁;47.1%为男性;37.1%为白人;27.2%为黑人;22.3%为西班牙裔;12.0%为华裔美国人)纳入分析。采用曲线下面积(AUC)和决策曲线分析来比较这三种风险评分。决策曲线分析是净效益与概率阈值的关系图;净效益=真阳性率-(假阳性率×权重因子)。权重因子=阈值概率/(1-阈值概率)。经过中位数8.6年,发生了342例(6.0%)ASCVD事件(心肌梗死、冠心病死亡、致命或非致命性卒中)。所有4种风险评分对ASCVD事件的判别能力均可接受;(AUC[95%CI]PCE:0.737[0.713至0.762];FRS:0.717[0.691至0.743],SCORE(高风险)0.722[0.696至0.747],SCORE(低风险):0.721[0.696至0.746])。在推荐用于一级预防的他汀类药物适用资格的ASCVD风险阈值(≥7.5%)下,PCE提供了最佳净效益。用SCORE(高风险)、SCORE(低风险)和FRS取代PCE会使他汀类药物适用资格进一步分别增加2.9%、8.9%和17.1%。与SCORE或FRS相比,PCE在美国多民族队列中对原发性ASCVD风险评估具有最佳的判别能力和净效益。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验