Shetty Naman S, Gaonkar Mokshad, Patel Nirav, Li Peng, Arora Garima, Arora Pankaj
Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
JACC Adv. 2024 May 2;3(6):100945. doi: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.100945. eCollection 2024 Jun.
In 2022, the Life's Simple 7 (LS7) score was replaced with the Life's Essential 8 (LE8) score as a tool to measure cardiovascular health. The risk prediction values of LE8 and LS7 scores for mortality have not been compared. Additionally, the risk prediction value of these scores has not been compared with the pooled cohort equations (PCE) in individuals aged 40 to 79 years.
This study compared the risk prediction value of the: 1) LE8 and LS7 scores in the overall population; and 2) LE8 score, LS7 score, and PCE in the 40- to 79-year-old age group for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a nationally representative US population.
The LS7 and LE8 scores and the PCE were calculated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cycles 2007 to 2018. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were identified by linking the participants to the National Death Index. The C-statistics of the respective weighted Cox models were used to compare the risk prediction value of the standardized scores.
Among 21,721 individuals included, the C-statistics for all-cause mortality were 0.823 (95% CI: 0.803-0.843) and 0.819 (95% CI: 0.799-0.838) in the LE8 and LS7 score-based models, respectively. The C-statistics for cardiovascular mortality were 0.887 (95% CI: 0.857-0.905) for the LE8 score-based model and 0.883 (95% CI: 0.861-0.905) for the LS7 score-based model. Among 12,943 individuals aged 40 to 79 years, the C-statistics for the outcome of all-cause mortality were 0.756 (95% CI: 0.732-0.779), 0.674 (95% CI: 0.646-0.701), and 0.681 (95% CI: 0.656-0.706) for the PCE, LS7 score, and LE8 score-based models, respectively.
The LS7 and LE8 scores had similar risk prediction values for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Among 40- to 79-year-old individuals, the PCE had better risk discrimination in the LE8 and LS7 scores in predicting all-cause mortality.
2022年,“生命简单7项指标(LS7)评分”被“生命基本8项指标(LE8)评分”取代,作为衡量心血管健康的工具。尚未比较LE8和LS7评分对死亡率的风险预测值。此外,在40至79岁的个体中,尚未将这些评分的风险预测值与合并队列方程(PCE)进行比较。
本研究比较了:1)总体人群中LE8和LS7评分的风险预测值;2)在美国具有全国代表性的人群中,40至79岁年龄组中LE8评分、LS7评分和PCE对全因死亡率和心血管死亡率的风险预测值。
在2007年至2018年的国家健康与营养检查调查周期中计算LS7和LE8评分以及PCE。通过将参与者与国家死亡指数相联系来确定全因死亡率和心血管死亡率。使用各自加权Cox模型的C统计量来比较标准化评分的风险预测值。
在纳入的21721名个体中,基于LE8评分和LS7评分的模型中,全因死亡率的C统计量分别为0.823(95%CI:0.803 - 0.843)和0.819(95%CI:0.799 - 0.838)。基于LE8评分的模型中心血管死亡率的C统计量为0.887(95%CI:0.857 - 0.905),基于LS7评分的模型中为0.883(95%CI:0.861 - 0.905)。在12943名40至79岁的个体中,基于PCE、LS7评分和LE8评分的模型中全因死亡率结局的C统计量分别为0.756(95%CI:0.732 - 0.779)、0.674(95%CI:0.646 - 0.701)和0.681(95%CI:0.656 - 0.706)。
LS7和LE8评分对全因死亡率和心血管死亡率具有相似的风险预测值。在40至79岁的个体中,PCE在预测全因死亡率方面比LE8和LS7评分具有更好的风险辨别能力。