Open AccessValidation and comparison of 28 risk prediction models for coronary artery disease
Author(s) -
Chris Lenselink,
Daan Ties,
Rick G. Pleijhuis
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
european journal of preventive cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.669
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 2047-4881
pISSN - 2047-4873
DOI - 10.1093/eurjpc/zwab095
Subject(s) - medicine , coronary artery disease , clinical endpoint , revascularization , percutaneous coronary intervention , cad , myocardial infarction , cardiology , proportional hazards model , framingham risk score , emergency medicine , clinical trial , disease , engineering drawing , engineering
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.