Physicians` attitudes and adherence to use of risk scores for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: cross-sectional survey in three world regions

Objective: To evaluate physicians` attitudes and adherence to the use of risk scores in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Design and methods: A cross-sectional survey of 2056 physicians involved in the primary prevention of CVD. Participants included cardiologists (47%), general practitioners (42%), and endocrinologists (11%) from several geographical regions: Brazil (n=968), USA (n=381), Greece (n=275), Chile (n=157), Venezuela (n=128), Portugal (n=42), The Netherlands (n=41), and Central America (Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala; n=64). Results: The main outcome measure was the percentage of responses on a multiple-choice questionnaire describing a hypothetical asymptomatic patient at intermediate risk for CVD according to the Framingham Risk Score. Only 48% of respondents reported regular use of CVD risk scores to tailor preventive treatment in the case scenario. Of non-users, nearly three-quarters indicated that `It takes up too much of my time` (52%) or `I don`t believe they add value to the clinical evaluation` (21%). Only 56% of respondents indicated that they would prescribe lipid-lowering therapy for the hypothetical intermediate-risk patient. A significantly greater proportion of regular users than non-users of CVD risk scores identified the need for lipid-lowering therapy in the hypothetical patient (59 vs. 41%; p<0.0001).

Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.

Applicability of Two International Risk Scores in Cardiac Surgery in a Reference Center in Brazil

Background:The applicability of international risk scores in heart surgery (HS) is not well defined in centers outside of North America and Europe.Objective:To evaluate the capacity of the Parsonnet Bernstein 2000 (BP) and EuroSCORE (ES) in predicting in-hospital mortality (IHM) in patients undergoing HS at a reference hospital in Brazil and to identify risk predictors (RP).Methods:Retrospective cohort study of 1,065 patients, with 60.3% patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 32.7%, valve surgery and 7.0%, CABG combined with valve surgery. Additive and logistic scores models, the area under the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve (AUC) and the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the RP.Results:Overall mortality was 7.8%. The baseline characteristics of the patients were significantly different in relation to BP and ES. AUCs of the logistic and additive BP were 0.72 (95% CI, from 0.66 to 0.78 p = 0.74), and of ES they were 0.73 (95% CI; 0.67 to 0.79 p = 0.80). The calculation of the SMR in BP was 1.59 (95% CI; 1.27 to 1.99) and in ES, 1.43 (95% CI; 1.14 to 1.79). Seven RP of IHM were identified: age, serum creatinine > 2.26 mg/dL, active endocarditis, systolic pulmonary arterial pressure > 60 mmHg, one or more previous HS, CABG combined with valve surgery and diabetes mellitus.Conclusion:Local scores, based on the real situation of local populations, must be developed for better assessment of risk in cardiac surgery.

Performance of Surgical Risk Scores to Predict Mortality after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

AbstractBackground:Predicting mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains a challenge.Objectives:To evaluate the performance of 5 risk scores for cardiac surgery in predicting the 30-day mortality among patients of the Brazilian Registry of TAVI.Methods:The Brazilian Multicenter Registry prospectively enrolled 418 patients undergoing TAVI in 18 centers between 2008 and 2013. The 30-day mortality risk was calculated using the following surgical scores: the logistic EuroSCORE I (ESI), EuroSCORE II (ESII), Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, Ambler score (AS) and Guaragna score (GS). The performance of the risk scores was evaluated in terms of their calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow test) and discrimination [area under the receiver–operating characteristic curve (AUC)].Results:The mean age was 81.5 ± 7.7 years. The CoreValve (Medtronic) was used in 86.1% of the cohort, and the transfemoral approach was used in 96.2%. The observed 30-day mortality was 9.1%. The 30-day mortality predicted by the scores was as follows: ESI, 20.2 ± 13.8%; ESII, 6.5 ± 13.8%; STS score, 14.7 ± 4.4%; AS, 7.0 ± 3.8%; GS, 17.3 ± 10.8%. Using AUC, none of the tested scores could accurately predict the 30-day mortality. AUC for the scores was as follows: 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49 to 0.68, p = 0.09] for ESI; 0.54 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.64, p = 0.42) for ESII; 0.57 (95% CI: 0.47 to 0.67, p = 0.16) for AS; 0.48 (95% IC: 0.38 to 0.57, p = 0.68) for STS score; and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.42 to 0.62, p = 0.64) for GS. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test indicated acceptable calibration for all scores (p > 0.05).Conclusions:In this real world Brazilian registry, the surgical risk scores were inaccurate in predicting mortality after TAVI. Risk models specifically developed for TAVI are required.

Estimating the risk of developing type 2 diabetes: a comparison of several risk scores: the Cohorte Lausannoise study.

To compare in the Swiss population the results of several scores estimating the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. This was a single-center, cross-sectional study conducted between 2003 and 2006 in Lausanne, Switzerland. Overall, 3,251 women and 2,937 men, aged 35-75 years, were assessed, of which 5,760 (93%) were free from diabetes and included in the current study. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was assessed using seven different risk scores, including clinical data with or without biological data. Participants were considered to be eligible for primary prevention according to the thresholds provided for each score. The results were then extrapolated to the Swiss population of the same sex and age. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increased with age in all scores. The prevalence of participants at high risk ranged between 1.6 and 24.9% in men and between 1.1 and 15.7% in women. Extrapolated to the Swiss population of similar age, the overall number of participants at risk, and thus susceptible to intervention, ranged between 46,708 and 636,841. In addition, scores that included the same clinical variables led to a significantly different prevalence of participants at risk (4.2% [95% CI 3.4-5.0] vs. 12.8% [11.5-14.1] in men and 2.9% [2.4-3.6] vs. 6.0% [5.2-6.9] in women). CONCLUSIONS; The prevalence of participants at risk for developing type 2 diabetes varies considerably according to the scoring system used. To adequately prevent type 2 diabetes, risk-scoring systems must be validated for each population considered.

Test of four colon cancer risk-scores in formalin fixed paraffin embedded microarray gene expression data.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis prediction for resected primary colon cancer is based on the T-stage Node Metastasis (TNM) staging system. We investigated if four well-documented gene expression risk scores can improve patient stratification. METHODS: Microarray-based versions of risk-scores were applied to a large independent cohort of 688 stage II/III tumors from the PETACC-3 trial. Prognostic value for relapse-free survival (RFS), survival after relapse (SAR), and overall survival (OS) was assessed by regression analysis. To assess improvement over a reference, prognostic model was assessed with the area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. All statistical tests were two-sided, except the AUC increase. RESULTS: All four risk scores (RSs) showed a statistically significant association (single-test, P < .0167) with OS or RFS in univariate models, but with HRs below 1.38 per interquartile range. Three scores were predictors of shorter RFS, one of shorter SAR. Each RS could only marginally improve an RFS or OS model with the known factors T-stage, N-stage, and microsatellite instability (MSI) status (AUC gains < 0.025 units). The pairwise interscore discordance was never high (maximal Spearman correlation = 0.563) A combined score showed a trend to higher prognostic value and higher AUC increase for OS (HR = 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.44 to 2.10, P < .001, AUC from 0.6918 to 0.7321) and RFS (HR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.33 to 1.84, P < .001, AUC from 0.6723 to 0.6945) than any single score. CONCLUSIONS: The four tested gene expression-based risk scores provide prognostic information but contribute only marginally to improving models based on established risk factors. A combination of the risk scores might provide more robust information. Predictors of RFS and SAR might need to be different.

Comparison of clinical and angiographic prognostic risk scores in elderly patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and referred for percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Multiple risk prediction models have been validated in all-age patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, they have not been validated specifically in the elderly. METHODS: We calculated the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) score, the logistic EuroSCORE, the AMIS (Acute Myocardial Infarction Swiss registry) score, and the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) score in a consecutive series of 114 patients ≥75 years presenting with ACS and treated with PCI within 24 hours of hospital admission. Patients were stratified according to score tertiles and analysed retrospectively by comparing the lower/mid tertiles as an aggregate group with the higher tertile group. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were the composite of death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 30 days, and 1-year MACE-free survival. Model discrimination ability was assessed using the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was higher in the upper tertile compared with the aggregate lower/mid tertiles according to the logistic EuroSCORE (42% vs 5%; odds ratio [OR] = 14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4-48; p <0.001; AUC = 0.79), the GRACE score (40% vs 4%; OR = 17, 95% CI = 4-64; p <0.001; AUC = 0.80), the AMIS score (40% vs 4%; OR = 16, 95% CI = 4-63; p <0.001; AUC = 0.80), and the SYNTAX score (37% vs 5%; OR = 11, 95% CI = 3-37; p <0.001; AUC = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients presenting with ACS and referred to PCI within 24 hours of admission, the GRACE score, the EuroSCORE, the AMIS score, and the SYNTAX score predicted 30 day mortality. The predictive value of clinical scores was improved by using them in combination.

Accuracy of four cardiovascular risk scores in a Swiss population-based cohort

Purpose: To assess the global cardiovascular (CV) risk of an individual, several scores have been developed. However, their accuracy and comparability need to be evaluated in populations others from which they were derived. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive accuracy of 4 CV risk scores using data of a large population-based cohort. Methods: Prospective cohort study including 4980 participants (2698 women, mean age± SD: 52.7±10.8 years) in Lausanne, Switzerland followed for an average of 5.5 years (range 0.2 - 8.5). Two end points were assessed: 1) coronary heart disease (CHD), and 2) CV diseases (CVD). Four risk scores were compared: original and recalibrated Framingham coronary heart disease scores (1998 and 2001); original PROCAM score (2002) and its recalibrated version for Switzerland (IAS-AGLA); Reynolds risk score. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C statistics, model fitness using Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and calibration using pseudo Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The sensitivity, specificity and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were assessed for each risk score using the highest risk category ([20+ % at 10 years) as the "positive" test. Results: Recalibrated and original 1998 and original 2001 Framingham scores show better discrimination (>0.720) and model fitness (low AIC) for CHD and CVD. All 4 scores are correctly calibrated (Chi2<20). The recalibrated Framingham 1998 score has the best sensitivities, 37.8% and 40.4%, for CHD and CVD, respectively. All scores present specificities >90%. Framingham 1998, PROCAM and IAS-AGLA scores include the greatest proportion of subjects (>200) in the high risk category whereas recalibrated Framingham 2001 and Reynolds include <=44 subjects. Conclusion: In this cohort, we see variations of accuracy between risk scores, the original Framingham 2001 score demonstrating the best compromise between its accuracy and its limited selection of subjects in the highest risk category. We advocate that national guidelines, based on independently validated data, take into account calibrated CV risk scores for their respective countries.

Diabetes risk scores and death: predictability and practicability in two different populations.

The aim was to examine the capacity of commonly used type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk scores to predict overall mortality. The US-based NHANES III (n = 3138; 982 deaths) and the Swiss-based CoLaus study (n = 3946; 191 deaths) were used. The predictive value of eight T2DM risk scores regarding overall mortality was tested. The Griffin score, based on few self-reported parameters, presented the best (NHANES III) and second best (CoLaus) predictive capacity. Generally, the predictive capacity of scores based on clinical (anthropometrics, lifestyle, history) and biological (blood parameters) data was not better than of scores based solely on clinical self-reported data. T2DM scores can be validly used to predict mortality risk in general populations without diabetes. Comparison with other scores could further show whether such scores also suit as a screening tool for quick overall health risk assessment.

Association between parental history and genetic risk scores for coronary heart disease prediction: The population-based CoLaus study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Parental history (PH) and genetic risk scores (GRSs) are separately associated with coronary heart disease (CHD), but evidence regarding their combined effects is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the joint associations and predictive ability of PH and GRSs for incident CHD. METHODS: Data for 4283 Caucasians were obtained from the population-based CoLaus Study, over median follow-up time of 5.6 years. CHD was defined as incident myocardial infarction, angina, percutaneous coronary revascularization or bypass grafting. Single nucleotide polymorphisms for CHD identified by genome-wide association studies were used to construct unweighted and weighted versions of three GRSs, comprising of 38, 53 and 153 SNPs respectively. RESULTS: PH was associated with higher values of all weighted GRSs. After adjustment for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, low and high density lipoprotein cholesterol, PH was significantly associated with CHD [HR 2.61, 95% CI (1.47-4.66)] and further adjustment for GRSs did not change this estimate. Similarly, one standard deviation change of the weighted 153-SNPs GRS was significantly associated with CHD [HR 1.50, 95% CI (1.26-1.80)] and remained so, after further adjustment for PH. The weighted, 153-SNPs GRS, but not PH, modestly improved discrimination [(C-index improvement, 0.016), p = 0.048] and reclassification [(NRI improvement, 8.6%), p = 0.027] beyond cardiovascular risk factors. After including both the GRS and PH, model performance improved further [(C-index improvement, 0.022), p = 0.006]. CONCLUSION: After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, PH and a weighted, polygenic GRS were jointly associated with CHD and provided additive information for coronary events prediction.

Incremental Value of the CRUSADE, ACUITY, and HAS-BLED Risk Scores for the Prediction of Hemorrhagic Events After Coronary Stent Implantation in Patients Undergoing Long or Short Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

BACKGROUND Multiple scores have been proposed to stratify bleeding risk, but their value to guide dual antiplatelet therapy duration has never been appraised. We compared the performance of the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines), ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy), and HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly) scores in 1946 patients recruited in the Prolonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Grading Stent-Induced Intimal Hyperplasia Study (PRODIGY) and assessed hemorrhagic and ischemic events in the 24- and 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy groups. METHODS AND RESULTS Bleeding score performance was assessed with a Cox regression model and C statistics. Discriminative and reclassification power was assessed with net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement. The C statistic was similar between the CRUSADE score (area under the curve 0.71) and ACUITY (area under the curve 0.68), and higher than HAS-BLED (area under the curve 0.63). CRUSADE, but not ACUITY, improved reclassification (net reclassification index 0.39, P=0.005) and discrimination (integrated discrimination improvement index 0.0083, P=0.021) of major bleeding compared with HAS-BLED. Major bleeding and transfusions were higher in the 24- versus 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy groups in patients with a CRUSADE score >40 (hazard ratio for bleeding 2.69, P=0.035; hazard ratio for transfusions 4.65, P=0.009) but not in those with CRUSADE score ≤40 (hazard ratio for bleeding 1.50, P=0.25; hazard ratio for transfusions 1.37, P=0.44), with positive interaction (Pint=0.05 and Pint=0.01, respectively). The number of patients with high CRUSADE scores needed to treat for harm for major bleeding and transfusion were 17 and 15, respectively, with 24-month rather than 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy; corresponding figures in the overall population were 67 and 71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis suggests that the CRUSADE score predicts major bleeding similarly to ACUITY and better than HAS BLED in an all-comer population with percutaneous coronary intervention and potentially identifies patients at higher risk of hemorrhagic complications when treated with a long-term dual antiplatelet therapy regimen. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00611286.