Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the incremental prognostic value of incorporating the ankle-brachial index into the 10-year pooled cohort equation risk model in patients with multiple risk factors.
Does an ankle-brachial index (ABI) ≤0.9 improve the prediction of hard cardiovascular events when added to the pooled cohort equation (PCE) risk model in Asian patients with multiple atherosclerotic risk factors?
Does an ankle-brachial index (ABI) ≤0.9 improve the prediction of hard cardiovascular events when added to the pooled cohort equation (PCE) risk model in Asian patients with multiple atherosclerotic risk factors?
Although an ABI ≤0.9 is an independent predictor of hard cardiovascular events, integrating it into the standard pooled cohort equation does not significantly improve risk reclassification in patients with multiple risk factors.
We aimed to evaluate the incremental prognostic value after incorporation of the ankle-brachial index (ABI) into the 10-year pool cohort equation (PCE) risk model in patients with multiple risk factors (MRFs). A total of 4332 MRFs patients were divided into 2 groups as ABI ≤.9 or >.9. The primary outcome was hard cardiovascular events (hCVE: including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke) over a median follow-up of 36 months. The Cox proportional hazards survival model, C-statistic, and net reclassification indices (NRI) were used. The occurrence of the primary outcome in the ABI ≤.9 group (3.7%) was significantly greater than in the ABI > .9 group (1.3%), P < .001. ABI is an independent predictor of hCVE in addition to the variables in the standard risk model (age, gender, and smoking status). ABI modestly improved the C-index when added to the PCE risk model (PCE .70 vs ABI+PCE .74). The addition of ABI to the PCE risk model did not significantly improve the classification of patients (NRI -.029; 95% CI: −.215 to .130). Despite ABI being one of the independent predictors of hCVE, integration of ABI into the PCE model did not improve the efficacy of risk reclassification in patients with MRFs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suwannasom et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: