PREVENT Equation: The Black Sheep among Cardiovascular Risk Scores? A Comparative Agreement Analysis of Nine Prediction Models in High-Risk Lithuanian Women.

In the context of female cardiovascular risk categorization, we aimed to assess the inter-model agreement between nine risk prediction models (RPM): the novel Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation, assessing cardiovascular risk using SIGN, the Australian CVD risk score, the Framingham Risk Score for Hard Coronary Heart Disease (FRS-hCHD), the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis risk score, the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE), the QRISK3 cardiovascular risk calculator, the Reynolds Risk Score, and Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation-2 (SCORE2). A cross-sectional study was conducted on 6527 40-65-year-old women with diagnosed metabolic syndrome from a single tertiary university hospital in Lithuania. Cardiovascular risk was calculated using the nine RPMs, and the results were categorized into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. Inter-model agreement was quantified using Cohen's Kappa coefficients. The study uncovered a significant diversity in risk categorization, with agreement on risk category by all models in only 1.98% of cases. The SCORE2 model primarily classified subjects as high-risk (68.15%), whereas the FRS-hCHD designated the majority as low-risk (94.42%). The range of Cohen's Kappa coefficients (-0.09-0.64) reflects the spectrum of agreement between models. Notably, the PREVENT model demonstrated significant agreement with QRISK3 (κ = 0.55) and PCE (κ = 0.52) but was completely at odds with the SCORE2 (κ = -0.09). Cardiovascular RPM selection plays a pivotal role in influencing clinical decisions and managing patient care. The PREVENT model revealed balanced results, steering clear of the extremes seen in both SCORE2 and FRS-hCHD. The highest concordance was observed between the PREVENT model and both PCE and QRISK3 RPMs. Conversely, the SCORE2 model demonstrated consistently low or negative agreement with other models, highlighting its unique approach to risk categorization. These findings accentuate the need for additional research to assess the predictive accuracy of these models specifically among the Lithuanian female population.