Key result
Life's Essential 8 predicts incident MACE with performance comparable to SCORE2.
Why the study?
Better control of modifiable risk factors can prevent CVD, and risk scores identify risk and promote health, but the prognostic value of Life's Essential 8 and how it compares to SCORE2 needed evaluation.
Does the Life's Essential 8 score predict incident MACE comparably to SCORE2 in a middle-aged cohort without established cardiovascular disease?
Cohort (n=2,938)
No
Does the Life's Essential 8 score predict incident MACE comparably to SCORE2 in a middle-aged cohort without established cardiovascular disease?
Hazard Ratio: 1.53 (95% CI 1.35–1.73)
p-value: p=0.30 for comparison
The Life's Essential 8 score demonstrates comparable prognostic value to the established SCORE2 tool for predicting cardiovascular events in a middle-aged population, supporting its use in health promotion.
Comparable MACE prediction by LE8 and SCORE2; leaves open whether LE8 improves risk stratification over SCORE2.
Aims Better control of modifiable risk factors offers substantial potential to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Risk scores can be used to identify and quantify risk and for health promotion, based on prediction of CVD. We aimed to evaluate and compare the prognostic value of Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) and its components, and to contrast LE8 with the established risk prediction tool SCORE2. Methods The Akershus Cardiac Examination 1950 (ACE1950) Study is an ongoing prospective birth cohort study including all men and women born in 1950 residing in Akershus County, Norway. Calculation of Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) and SCORE2 was performed at the baseline visit (2012–2015). Participants were followed through 2022 for incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results Among 3,706 participants (attendance rate 64%), 2,938 without established CVD and with complete LE8 data were included. Mean age 63.9 years, 53% women, with a mean SCORE2 of 6.1 and a LE8 score of 63.9. Only 9.8% had “Optimal” cardiovascular health (CVH) according to LE8. During a median follow-up of 8.3 years, 6.7% experienced incident MACE. Both LE8 (total score, domains, and number of optimal components) and SCORE2 were significantly associated with MACE, with comparable predictive performance (LE 8 HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.35-1.73; SCORE 2 HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.57-2.10, p for comparison = 0.30). The highest risk was observed among participants with “Poor” CVH. Conclusions LE8 can be used in health promotion based on prognostic value comparable to SCORE2, for counselling to a healthier lifestyle to preserve cardiovascular health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ihle-Hansen et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in General population without established CVD (n=2,938). Life's Essential 8 (LE8) score vs. SCORE2 was evaluated on incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.35-1.73, p=0.30 for comparison). Life's Essential 8 score predicted incident MACE with performance comparable to SCORE2 (LE8 HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.35-1.73; SCORE2 HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.57-2.10; p=0.30 for comparison).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: