Key result
CART analysis simplifies very high-risk ASCVD identification by requiring ~50% fewer risk factors.
Why the study?
The 2018 AHA/ACC guideline classification of ASCVD patients as very high-risk vs not-very high-risk dictates therapy escalation, prompting a need to define these groups and develop a simpler identification method.
Can a simplified CART analysis model accurately identify very high-risk (VHR) status in patients with ASCVD?
Observational (n=180,669)
Yes
Can a simplified CART analysis model accurately identify very high-risk (VHR) status in patients with ASCVD?
A simplified CART-based model using fewer than half of the guideline-recommended risk factors can accurately identify very high-risk ASCVD patients, potentially streamlining point-of-care risk assessment.
May aid VHR ASCVD identification in practice; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before changing care.
OBJECTIVE: The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) Blood Cholesterol Guideline recommendation to classify patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as very high-risk (VHR) vs not-VHR (NVHR) has important implications for escalation of medical therapy. We aimed to define the prevalence and clinical characteristics of these two groups within a large multi-state healthcare system and develop a simpler means to assist clinicians in identifying VHR patients using classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients in a 28-hospital US healthcare system in 2018. ICD-10 codes were used to define the ASCVD population. Per the AHA/ACC Guideline, VHR status was defined by ≥2 major ASCVD events or 1 major ASCVD event and ≥2 high-risk conditions. CART analysis was performed on training and validation datasets. A random forest model was used to verify results. RESULTS: Of 180,669 ASCVD patients identified, 58% were VHR. Among patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 99% and 96% were classified as VHR, respectively. Both CART and random forest models identified recent ACS, ischemic stroke, hypertension, peripheral artery disease, history of MI, and age as the most important predictors of VHR status. Using five rules identified by CART analysis, fewer than 50% of risk factors were required to assign VHR status. CONCLUSION: CART analysis helped to streamline the identification of VHR patients based on a limited number of rules and risk factors. This approach may help improve clinical decision making by simplifying ASCVD risk assessment at the point of care. Further validation is needed, however, in more diverse populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sajja et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (n=180,669). Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was evaluated on Very high-risk (VHR) status classification. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis simplified very high-risk ASCVD identification among 180,669 patients (58% VHR), requiring fewer than 50% of risk factors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: