Validation and comparison of 28 risk prediction models for coronary artery disease
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology..
AIMS: Risk prediction models (RPMs) for coronary artery disease (CAD), using variables to calculate CAD risk, are potentially valuable tools in prevention strategies. However, their use in the clinical practice is limited by a lack of poor model description, external validation, and head-to-head comparisons.
METHODS AND RESULTS: CAD RPMs were identified through Tufts PACE CPM Registry and a systematic PubMed search. Every RPM was externally validated in the three cohorts (the UK Biobank, LifeLines, and PREVEND studies) for the primary endpoint myocardial infarction (MI) and secondary endpoint CAD, consisting of MI, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass grafting. Model discrimination (C-index), calibration (intercept and regression slope), and accuracy (Brier score) were assessed and compared head-to-head between RPMs. Linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictive factors to estimate calibration ability of an RPM. Eleven articles containing 28 CAD RPMs were included. No single best-performing RPM could be identified across all cohorts and outcomes. Most RPMs yielded fair discrimination ability: mean C-index of RPMs was 0.706 ± 0.049, 0.778 ± 0.097, and 0.729 ± 0.074 (P < 0.01) for prediction of MI in UK Biobank, LifeLines, and PREVEND, respectively. Endpoint incidence in the original development cohorts was identified as a significant predictor for external validation performance.
CONCLUSION: Performance of CAD RPMs was comparable upon validation in three large cohorts, based on which no specific RPM can be recommended for predicting CAD risk.
| Errataetall: |
CommentIn: Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2022 Mar 30;29(4):664-665. - PMID 34329419 |
|---|---|
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:29 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
European journal of preventive cardiology - 29(2022), 4 vom: 30. März, Seite 666-674 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Lenselink, Chris [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Coronary artery disease |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 01.04.2022 Date Revised 13.05.2022 published: Print CommentIn: Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2022 Mar 30;29(4):664-665. - PMID 34329419 Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1093/eurjpc/zwab095 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM328740160 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM328740160 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225203602.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1093/eurjpc/zwab095 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1095.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM328740160 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34329420 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Lenselink, Chris |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Validation and comparison of 28 risk prediction models for coronary artery disease |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 01.04.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 13.05.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a CommentIn: Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2022 Mar 30;29(4):664-665. - PMID 34329419 | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. | ||
| 520 | |a AIMS: Risk prediction models (RPMs) for coronary artery disease (CAD), using variables to calculate CAD risk, are potentially valuable tools in prevention strategies. However, their use in the clinical practice is limited by a lack of poor model description, external validation, and head-to-head comparisons | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS AND RESULTS: CAD RPMs were identified through Tufts PACE CPM Registry and a systematic PubMed search. Every RPM was externally validated in the three cohorts (the UK Biobank, LifeLines, and PREVEND studies) for the primary endpoint myocardial infarction (MI) and secondary endpoint CAD, consisting of MI, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass grafting. Model discrimination (C-index), calibration (intercept and regression slope), and accuracy (Brier score) were assessed and compared head-to-head between RPMs. Linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictive factors to estimate calibration ability of an RPM. Eleven articles containing 28 CAD RPMs were included. No single best-performing RPM could be identified across all cohorts and outcomes. Most RPMs yielded fair discrimination ability: mean C-index of RPMs was 0.706 ± 0.049, 0.778 ± 0.097, and 0.729 ± 0.074 (P < 0.01) for prediction of MI in UK Biobank, LifeLines, and PREVEND, respectively. Endpoint incidence in the original development cohorts was identified as a significant predictor for external validation performance | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: Performance of CAD RPMs was comparable upon validation in three large cohorts, based on which no specific RPM can be recommended for predicting CAD risk | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Coronary artery disease | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Myocardial ischaemia | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Preventive medicine | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Risk assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Risk prediction models | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ties, Daan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pleijhuis, Rick |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a van der Harst, Pim |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t European journal of preventive cardiology |d 2012 |g 29(2022), 4 vom: 30. März, Seite 666-674 |w (DE-627)NLM19817909X |x 2047-4881 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:29 |g year:2022 |g number:4 |g day:30 |g month:03 |g pages:666-674 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwab095 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 29 |j 2022 |e 4 |b 30 |c 03 |h 666-674 | ||