Key result
Increased HeartAge-gap is linked to ~2% higher cardiovascular risk per year beyond chronological age.
Why the study?
Does a biologically older cardiovascular system (HeartAge-gap) predict adverse clinical outcomes independently of chronological age?
Cohort (n=32,681)
Yes
Does a biologically older cardiovascular system (HeartAge-gap) predict adverse clinical outcomes independently of chronological age?
Hazard Ratio: 1.022 (95% CI 1–1.044)
p-value: p=0.048
A biologically older cardiovascular system, estimated via cardiovascular magnetic resonance phenotypes, is a robust and independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality.
Background Cardiovascular ageing is the main biological driver of cardiovascular diseases, offering a unique opportunity to transform research and prevention strategies at both individual and population levels. Purpose We aimed to develop, and validate, a novel estimate of cardiovascular biological age (HeartAge) and its deviation from chronological age (HeartAge-gap) using XGBoost regression informed by readily extractable cardiovascular magnetic resonance phenotypes. Methods HeartAge and HeartAge-gap were estimated in 31,784 UK-Biobank participants (16,640 females, 64±7 years). A positive HeartAge-gap indicates an older cardiovascular system, conversely a negative HeartAge-gap indicates a younger one. Logistic regression assessed the association between HeartAge-gap and prevalent cardiovascular conditions, while Cox regression proportional hazard-ratio models evaluated its predictive value for the composite cardiovascular outcome and all-cause mortality. External validation was conducted in 897 participants (472 females, 60±10 years) from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Results HeartAge-gap was independently associated hypertension, diabetes, and ischaemic heart disease in both sexes (P<0·05 for all). Over a median follow-up of nearly 6 years, an increased HeartAge-gap predicted the composite cardiovascular outcome in females (HR:1·022, 95%CI:1·000-1·044, P=0·048) and males (HR:1·017, 95%CI:1·002-1·033, P=0·027) independently of chronological age and other major baseline confounders including, body-mass-index, ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension. In females, an increased HeartAge-gap also predicted all-cause mortality (HR:1·061, 95%CI:1·007-1·118, P=0·027) regardless of chronological age. In MESA females, increased HeartAge-gap predicted the cardiovascular outcome (HR:1·113, 95%CI:1·025-1·210, P=0·011) independently of chronological age and other key confounders. Conclusion Our framework offers an individualised approach to estimating cardiovascular biological ageing. A biologically older cardiovascular system emerged as a robust, independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, irrespective of chronological age and traditional risk factors. Notably, in females, advanced cardiovascular ageing also predicted all-cause mortality regardless of chronological age.Figure-1.Study outline and main outcome
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A T Mohamed (2025) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular ageing (n=32,681). Increased HeartAge-gap vs. Chronological age was evaluated on Composite cardiovascular outcome (HR 1.022, 95% CI 1.000-1.044, p=0.048). An increased HeartAge-gap predicted composite cardiovascular outcomes independently of chronological age in females (HR 1.022; 95% CI 1.000-1.044) and males (HR 1.017; 95% CI 1.002-1.033).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: