Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24681960›Full record

ArticleJAMA2014

Comparison of application of the ACC/AHA guidelines, Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, and European Society of Cardiology guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in a European cohort.

Maryam Kavousi, Maarten J G Leening, David Nanchen, Philip Greenland, Ian M Graham, Ewout W Steyerberg, M Arfan Ikram, Bruno H Stricker, Albert Hofman, Oscar H Franco

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 144 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
144citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
53.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

144 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 356 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

84 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Maryam KavousiDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Maarten J G LeeningDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands2Department of Cardiology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
David NanchenDepartment of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Philip GreenlandDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois5Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Ian M GrahamTrinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
M Arfan IkramDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands8Department of Radiology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands9Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC-University Medic.
Bruno H StrickerDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands10Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands11Inspectorate for Health Care, the Hague, t.
Albert HofmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Oscar H FrancoDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLNorthwestern University · USTrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines introduced a prediction model and lowered the threshold for treatment with statins to a 7.5% 10-year hard atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Implications of the new guideline's threshold and model have not been addressed in non-US populations or compared with previous guidelines.

objectiveTo determine population-wide implications of the ACC/AHA, the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines using a cohort of Dutch individuals aged 55 years or older. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsWe included 4854 Rotterdam Study participants recruited in 1997-2001. We calculated 10-year risks for "hard" ASCVD events (including fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease [CHD] and stroke) (ACC/AHA), hard CHD events (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, CHD mortality) (ATP-III), and atherosclerotic CVD mortality (ESC). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Events were assessed until January 1, 2012. Per guideline, we calculated proportions of individuals for whom statins would be recommended and determined calibration and discrimination of risk models.

resultsThe mean age was 65.5 (SD, 5.2) years. Statins would be recommended for 96.4% (95% CI, 95.4%-97.1%; n = 1825) of men and 65.8% (95% CI, 63.8%-67.7%; n = 1523) of women by the ACC/AHA, 52.0% (95% CI, 49.8%-54.3%; n = 985) of men and 35.5% (95% CI, 33.5%-37.5%; n = 821) of women by the ATP-III, and 66.1% (95% CI, 64.0%-68.3%; n = 1253) of men and 39.1% (95% CI, 37.1%-41.2%; n = 906) of women by ESC guidelines. With the ACC/AHA model, average predicted risk vs observed cumulative incidence of hard ASCVD events was 21.5% (95% CI, 20.9%-22.1%) vs 12.7% (95% CI, 11.1%-14.5%) for men (192 events) and 11.6% (95% CI, 11.2%-12.0%) vs 7.9% (95% CI, 6.7%-9.2%) for women (151 events). Similar overestimation occurred with the ATP-III model (98 events in men and 62 events in women) and ESC model (50 events in men and 37 events in women). The C statistic was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71) in men and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.73) in women for hard ASCVD (ACC/AHA), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) in men and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.75) in women for hard CHD (ATP-III), and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70-0.82) in men and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.71-0.83) in women for CVD mortality (ESC). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this European population aged 55 years or older, proportions of individuals eligible for statins differed substantially among the guidelines. The ACC/AHA guideline would recommend statins for nearly all men and two-thirds of women, proportions exceeding those with the ATP-III or ESC guidelines. All 3 risk models provided poor calibration and moderate to good discrimination. Improving risk predictions and setting appropriate population-wide thresholds are necessary to facilitate better clinical decision making.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAgedAmerican Heart AssociationCardiologyCardiovascular DiseasesCohort StudiesEuropeFemaleHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalNetherlandsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID24681960
OpenAlexW2141676927

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.