External validation of three atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk equations in rural areas of Xinjiang, China

• Main Authors: Yunxing Jiang (Author), Rulin Ma (Author), Heng Guo (Author), Xianghui Zhang (Author), Xinping Wang (Author), Kui Wang (Author), Yunhua Hu (Author), Mulatibieke Keerman (Author), Yizhong Yan (Author), Jiaolong Ma (Author), Yanpeng Song (Author), Jingyu Zhang (Author), Jia He (Author), Shuxia Guo (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2020-09-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12889-020-09579-4; 1471-2458
• Keywords: Atherosclerotic; Cardiovascular diseases; Primary prevention; Risk equations; External validation; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: BMC Public Health, Vol 20, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2020)

Abstract Background To externally validate the Prediction for ASCVD Risk in China (PAR) risk equation for predicting the 5-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in the Uyghur and Kazakh populations from rural areas in northwestern China and compare its performance with those of the pooled cohort equations (PCE) and Framingham risk score (FRS). Methods The final analysis included 3347 subjects aged 40-74 years without CVD at baseline. The 5-year ASCVD risk was calculated using the PAR, PCE, and FRS. Discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the three equations in predicting the 5-year ASCVD risk were assessed before and after recalibration. Results Of 3347 included subjects, 1839 were female. We observed 286 ASCVD events in within 5-year follow-up. All three risk equations had moderate discrimination in both men and women. C-indices of PAR, PCE, and FRS were 0.727 (95% CI, 0.725-0.729), 0.727 (95% CI, 0.725-0.729), and 0.740 (95% CI, 0.738-0.742), respectively, in men; the corresponding C-indices were 0.738 (95% CI, 0.737-0.739), 0.731 (95% CI, 0.730-0.732), and 0.761 (95% CI, 0.760-0.762), respectively, in women. PCE, PAR and FRS substantially underestimated the 5-year ASCVD risk in women by 70, 23 and 51%, respectively. However, PAR and FRS fairly predicted the risk in men and PAR was well calibrated. The calibrations of the three risk equations could be changed by recalibration. The decision curve analyses demonstrated that at the threshold risk of 5%, PCE was the most clinically useful in both men and women after recalibration. Conclusions All three risk equations underestimated the 5-year ASCVD risk in women, while PAR and FRS fairly predicted that in men. However, the results of predictive performances for three risk equations are inconsistent, more accurate risk equations are required in the primary prevention of ASCVD aiming to this Uyghur and Kazakh populations.