Cargando…

Biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES: To test new cardiovascular (CV) risk models in very old adults with and without a history of CV disease (CVD), based on traditional risk factors and biomarkers. DESIGN: Cross-validated prospective cohort study. The models were tested in the BELFRAIL Study and externally validated in the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vaes, Bert, Indestege, Paulien, Serneels, Tinne, Hegendörfer, Eralda, van Peet, Petra G, Poortvliet, Rosalinde K E, Wallemacq, Pierre, Gussekloo, Jacobijn, Degryse, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32595156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035809
_version_ 1783551618278490112
author Vaes, Bert
Indestege, Paulien
Serneels, Tinne
Hegendörfer, Eralda
van Peet, Petra G
Poortvliet, Rosalinde K E
Wallemacq, Pierre
Gussekloo, Jacobijn
Degryse, Jan
author_facet Vaes, Bert
Indestege, Paulien
Serneels, Tinne
Hegendörfer, Eralda
van Peet, Petra G
Poortvliet, Rosalinde K E
Wallemacq, Pierre
Gussekloo, Jacobijn
Degryse, Jan
author_sort Vaes, Bert
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To test new cardiovascular (CV) risk models in very old adults with and without a history of CV disease (CVD), based on traditional risk factors and biomarkers. DESIGN: Cross-validated prospective cohort study. The models were tested in the BELFRAIL Study and externally validated in the Leiden 85-plus Study. SETTING: General practice, Belgium and The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: The BELFRAIL cohort consisted of 266 patients aged 80 years or older without a history of CVD and 260 with a history of CVD. The Leiden 85-plus Study consisted of 264 patients aged 85 years without a history of CVD and 282 with a history of CVD. OUTCOME MEASURES: The model with traditional risk factors and biomarkers, as well as the model using only biomarkers, was compared with the model with only traditional risk factors to predict 3-year CV morbidity and mortality. A competing-risk analysis was performed, and the continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and net benefit were used to compare the predictive value of the different models. RESULTS: Traditional risk factors poorly predicted CV mortality and morbidity. In participants without a history of CVD, adding N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) improved the prediction (NRI 0.56 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.99) and relative IDI 4.01 (95% CI 2.19 to 6.28)). In participants with a history of CVD, the NRI with the addition of NT-pro-BNP and high-sensitivity C reactive protein was 0.38 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.70), and the relative IDI was 0.53 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.90). Moreover, in participants without a history of CVD, NT-pro-BNP performed well as a stand-alone predictor (NRI 0.32 (95% CI −0.12 to 0.74) and relative IDI 3.44 (95% CI 1.56 to 6.09)). CONCLUSIONS: This study tested new risk models to predict CV morbidity and mortality in very old adults. Especially, NT-pro-BNP showed a strong added predictive value. This opens perspectives for clinicians who are in need of an easily applicable strategy for CV risk prediction in very old adults.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7322328
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73223282020-07-02 Biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study Vaes, Bert Indestege, Paulien Serneels, Tinne Hegendörfer, Eralda van Peet, Petra G Poortvliet, Rosalinde K E Wallemacq, Pierre Gussekloo, Jacobijn Degryse, Jan BMJ Open Cardiovascular Medicine OBJECTIVES: To test new cardiovascular (CV) risk models in very old adults with and without a history of CV disease (CVD), based on traditional risk factors and biomarkers. DESIGN: Cross-validated prospective cohort study. The models were tested in the BELFRAIL Study and externally validated in the Leiden 85-plus Study. SETTING: General practice, Belgium and The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: The BELFRAIL cohort consisted of 266 patients aged 80 years or older without a history of CVD and 260 with a history of CVD. The Leiden 85-plus Study consisted of 264 patients aged 85 years without a history of CVD and 282 with a history of CVD. OUTCOME MEASURES: The model with traditional risk factors and biomarkers, as well as the model using only biomarkers, was compared with the model with only traditional risk factors to predict 3-year CV morbidity and mortality. A competing-risk analysis was performed, and the continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and net benefit were used to compare the predictive value of the different models. RESULTS: Traditional risk factors poorly predicted CV mortality and morbidity. In participants without a history of CVD, adding N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) improved the prediction (NRI 0.56 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.99) and relative IDI 4.01 (95% CI 2.19 to 6.28)). In participants with a history of CVD, the NRI with the addition of NT-pro-BNP and high-sensitivity C reactive protein was 0.38 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.70), and the relative IDI was 0.53 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.90). Moreover, in participants without a history of CVD, NT-pro-BNP performed well as a stand-alone predictor (NRI 0.32 (95% CI −0.12 to 0.74) and relative IDI 3.44 (95% CI 1.56 to 6.09)). CONCLUSIONS: This study tested new risk models to predict CV morbidity and mortality in very old adults. Especially, NT-pro-BNP showed a strong added predictive value. This opens perspectives for clinicians who are in need of an easily applicable strategy for CV risk prediction in very old adults. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7322328/ /pubmed/32595156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035809 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Vaes, Bert
Indestege, Paulien
Serneels, Tinne
Hegendörfer, Eralda
van Peet, Petra G
Poortvliet, Rosalinde K E
Wallemacq, Pierre
Gussekloo, Jacobijn
Degryse, Jan
Biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study
title Biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study
title_full Biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study
title_fullStr Biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study
title_short Biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study
title_sort biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32595156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035809
work_keys_str_mv AT vaesbert biomarkersversustraditionalriskfactorstopredictcardiovasculareventsinveryoldadultscrossvalidatedprospectivecohortstudy
AT indestegepaulien biomarkersversustraditionalriskfactorstopredictcardiovasculareventsinveryoldadultscrossvalidatedprospectivecohortstudy
AT serneelstinne biomarkersversustraditionalriskfactorstopredictcardiovasculareventsinveryoldadultscrossvalidatedprospectivecohortstudy
AT hegendorfereralda biomarkersversustraditionalriskfactorstopredictcardiovasculareventsinveryoldadultscrossvalidatedprospectivecohortstudy
AT vanpeetpetrag biomarkersversustraditionalriskfactorstopredictcardiovasculareventsinveryoldadultscrossvalidatedprospectivecohortstudy
AT poortvlietrosalindeke biomarkersversustraditionalriskfactorstopredictcardiovasculareventsinveryoldadultscrossvalidatedprospectivecohortstudy
AT wallemacqpierre biomarkersversustraditionalriskfactorstopredictcardiovasculareventsinveryoldadultscrossvalidatedprospectivecohortstudy
AT gussekloojacobijn biomarkersversustraditionalriskfactorstopredictcardiovasculareventsinveryoldadultscrossvalidatedprospectivecohortstudy
AT degrysejan biomarkersversustraditionalriskfactorstopredictcardiovasculareventsinveryoldadultscrossvalidatedprospectivecohortstudy