Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2001; 40(01): 6-11
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634457
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Identification of Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk: a Critical Appraisal of Applicability of Statistical Risk Prediction Models

H. Dréau
1   Public Health and Medical Informatics, Broussais – Hôtel Dieu University, Paris, France
,
I. Colombet
1   Public Health and Medical Informatics, Broussais – Hôtel Dieu University, Paris, France
,
P. Degoulet
1   Public Health and Medical Informatics, Broussais – Hôtel Dieu University, Paris, France
,
G. Chatellier
1   Public Health and Medical Informatics, Broussais – Hôtel Dieu University, Paris, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
08 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Assessment of cardiovascular risk is widely proposed as a basis for taking management decisions about patients presenting with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. Our aim was to critically assess the use of risk equations derived from epidemiological studies for the purpose of identifying high-risk patients.

Risk equations were retrieved from the MEDLINE database and then applied to a data set of 118 patients. This data set was an evaluation study of the clinical value of the World Health Organization 1993 hypertension guidelines for the decision to treat mild hypertensive patients. We calculated agreement: 1) between equations and 2) between equations and the decision to treat taken by the physician.

Most models were not applicable to our population, mainly because the original population had a narrow age range or comprised only males. Between-model agreement was better for the lower and upper risk quintiles than for the three other risk quintiles (0.58, 0.33, 0.34, 0.45, 0.70, from the lower to the upper risk quintile). When using an arbitrary threshold for defining high-risk patients (i.e. >2% per year), we observed a huge variation of the proportion of patients classified at high risk (from 0 to 17%). There was a poor agreement between risk models and the decision to treat taken by the physician. These results suggest that risk-based guidelines should be validated before their diffusion.

Keywords

Prediction - Risk Models - Cardiovascular Disease
 

  • References

  • 1 Grundy SM, Balady GJ, Criqui MH, Fletcher G, Greenland P, Hiratzka LF. et al. Primary prevention of coronary heart disease: guidance from Framingham: a statement for healthcare professionals from the AHA Task Force on Risk Reduction. American Heart Association. Circulation 1998; 97 (Suppl. 18) 1876-87.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Task Force Report.. Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Recommendations of the Second Joint Task Force of European and other Societies on coronary prevention. Eur Heart J 1998; 19 (Suppl. 10) 1434-503.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Haq IU, Jackson PR, Yeo WW, Ramsay LE. Sheffield risk and treatment table for cholesterol lowering for primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Lancet 1995; 346 8988 1467-71.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jackson R, Barham P, Bills J, Birch T, McLennan L, MacMahon S. et al. Management of raised blood pressure in New Zealand: a discussion document. BMJ 1993; 307 6896 107-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 O’Brien E, Staessen JA. What is “hypertension”?. Lancet 1999; 353 9164 1541-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Friedmann PD, Brett AS, Mayo-Smith MF. Differences in generalists’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124 (Suppl. 04) 414-21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997; 277 (Suppl. 06) 488-94.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Randolph AG, Guyatt GH, Calvin JE, Doig G, Richardson WS. Understanding articles describing clinical prediction tools. Evidence Based Medicine in Critical Care Group. Crit Care Med 1998; 26 (Suppl. 09) 1603-12.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130 (Suppl. 06) 515-24.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Knuiman MW, Vu HT. Prediction of coronary heart disease mortality in Busselton, Western Australia: an evaluation of the Framingham, national health epidemiologic follow-up study, and WHO ERICA risk scores. J Epidemiol Community Health 1997; 51 (Suppl. 05) 515-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Leaverton PE, Sorlie PD, Kleinman JC, Dannenberg AL, Ingster-Moore L, Kannel WB. et al. Representativeness of the Framingham risk model for coronary heart disease mortality: a comparison with a national cohort study. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (Suppl. 08) 775-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Truelsen T, Lindenstrom E, Boysen G. Comparison of probability of stroke between the Copenhagen City Heart Study and the Framingham Study. Stroke 1994; 25 (Suppl. 04) 802-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Renaud S, de Lorgeril M. Wine, alcohol, platelets, and the French paradox for coronary heart disease. Lancet 1992; 339 8808 1523-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Laurier D, Nguyen PC, Cazelles B, Segond P. Estimation of CHD risk in a French working population using a modified Framing-ham model. The PCV-METRA Group. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47 (Suppl. 12) 1353-64.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chatellier G, Abergel E, Battaglia C, Menard J. Do WHO-ISH guidelines identify high risk mild hypertensive patients?. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss 1998; 91 (Suppl. 08) 967-70.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fleiss J. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. J Wiley; 1981. p 223-4.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44 (Suppl. 03) 837-45.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ross I, Gentleman R. R: A Language for Data Analysis and Graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 1996; 5: 299-314.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Anderson KM, Wilson PW, Odell PM, Kannel WB. An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals. Circulation 1991; 83 (Suppl. 01) 356-62.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PW, Kannel WB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1991; 121 1 Pt 2 293-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Assmann G, Schulte H, von Eckardstein A. Hypertriglyceridemia and elevated lipoprotein(a) are risk factors for major coronary events in middle-aged men. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77 (Suppl. 14) 1179-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brand RJ, Rosenman RH, Sholtz RI, Friedman M. Multivariate prediction of coronary heart disease in the Western Collaborative Group Study compared to the findings of the Framingham study. Circulation 1976; 53 (Suppl. 02) 348-55.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ducimetiere P, Richard JL, Rakotovao R, Claude JR. [Estimation of risk as a function of risk factors. II.--Application to the multivariate analysis of coronary heart disease in a middle aged male population (author‘s transl)]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 1976; 24 (Suppl. 02) 131-40.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Murabito JM, D‘Agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Wilson WF. Intermittent claudication. A risk profile from The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 1997; 96 (Suppl. 01) 44-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tunstall-Pedoe H. The Dundee coronary risk-disk for management of change in risk factors. BMJ 1991; 303 6805 744-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wolf PA, D‘Agostino RB, Belanger AJ, Kannel WB. Probability of stroke: a risk profile from the Framingham Study. Stroke 1991; 22 (Suppl. 03) 312-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Group ER. Prediction of coronary heart disease in Europe; The 2nd report of the WHOERICA Project. Eur Heart J 1991; 12: 291-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures (see comments). BMJ 1992; 304 6840 1491-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, Moss SM, Amar SS, Balfour TW. et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996; 348 9040 1472-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, Forrest AP, Hepburn W, Kirkpatrick AE. et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast- cancer screening. Lancet 1999; 353 9168 1903-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Collins R, Peto R, MacMahon S, Hebert P, Fiebach NH, Eberlein KA. et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 2, Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context. Lancet 1990; 335 8693 827-38.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bucher HC, Griffith LE, Guyatt GH. Systematic review on the risk and benefit of different cholesterol- lowering interventions. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1999; 19 (Suppl. 02) 187-95.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chambless LE, Dobson AJ, Patterson CC, Raines B. On the use of a logistic risk score in predicting risk of coronary heart disease. Stat Med 1990; 9 (Suppl. 04) 385-96.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Simpson FO. Guidelines for antihypertensive therapy: problems with a strategy based on absolute cardiovascular risk. J Hypertens 1996; 14 (Suppl. 06) 683-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lloyd-Jones DM, Larson MG, Beiser A, Levy D. Lifetime risk of developing coronary heart disease. Lancet 1999; 353 9147 89-92.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar