Search

Background: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend distinct risk classification systems for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention. However, both systems rely on similar predictors (eg, age and diabetes), indicating the possibility of a universal risk prediction approach for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs)., Objectives: The authors examined the performance of predictors in persons with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and developed and validated a universal risk prediction model., Methods: Among 9,138 ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) participants with (n = 609) and without (n = 8,529) ASCVD at baseline (1996-1998), we examined established predictors in the risk classification systems and other predictors, such as body mass index and cardiac biomarkers (troponin and natriuretic peptide), using Cox models with MACEs (myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure). We also evaluated model performance., Results: Over a follow-up of approximately 20 years, there were 3,209 MACEs (2,797 for no prior ASCVD). Most predictors showed similar associations with MACE regardless of baseline ASCVD status. A universal risk prediction model with the predictors (eg, established predictors, cardiac biomarkers) identified by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression and bootstrapping showed good discrimination for both groups (c-statistics of 0.747 and 0.691, respectively), and risk classification and showed excellent calibration, irrespective of ASCVD status. This universal prediction approach identified individuals without ASCVD who had a higher risk than some individuals with ASCVD and was validated externally in 5,322 participants in the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis)., Conclusions: A universal risk prediction approach performed well in persons with and without ASCVD. This approach could facilitate the transition from primary to secondary prevention by streamlining risk classification and discussion between clinicians and patients., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The ARIC study has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract nos. (75N92022D00001, 75N92022D00002, 75N92022D00003, 75N92022D00004, 75N92022D00005). The MESA was supported by contracts 75N92020D00001, HHSN268201500003I, N01-HC-95159, 75N92020D00005, N01-HC-95160, 75N92020D00002, N01-HC-95161, 75N92020D00003, N01-HC-95162, 75N92020D00006, N01-HC-95163, 75N92020D00004, N01-HC-95164, 75N92020D00007, N01-HC-95165, N01-HC-95166, N01-HC-95167, N01-HC-95168, and N01-HC-95169 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and by grants UL1-TR-000040, UL1-TR-001079, and UL1-TR-001420 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). A full list of participating MESA investigators and institutions can be found at http://www.mesa-nhlbi.org. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)