CARDIOVASCULAR RISK ASSESSMENT USING THE PREVENT SCALE IN OLDER ADULTS FROM NORTHWESTERN COLOMBIA, 2014-2024

EVALUACIÓN DEL RIESGO CARDIOVASCULAR MEDIANTE LA ESCALA PREVENT EN ADULTOS MAYORES DEL NOROCCIDENTE DE COLOMBIA, 2014-2024

Published 2025-09-25


https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5448.2026
Issue
Vol. 26 No. 1 (2026): Revista Archivos de Medicina (Manizales)
Section
Artículos de Investigación
How to Cite
Hernández, J. A. (2025). CARDIOVASCULAR RISK ASSESSMENT USING THE PREVENT SCALE IN OLDER ADULTS FROM NORTHWESTERN COLOMBIA, 2014-2024. Archivos De Medicina , 26(1). https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5448.2026
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
DOI

https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5448.2026
Dimensions
PlumX

How to Cite

Hernández, J. A. (2025). CARDIOVASCULAR RISK ASSESSMENT USING THE PREVENT SCALE IN OLDER ADULTS FROM NORTHWESTERN COLOMBIA, 2014-2024. Archivos De Medicina , 26(1). https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5448.2026

Download Citation

license
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Jorge Andres Hernández
Universidad de Santander
Show authors biography

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Introduction: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of global mortality, with a significant increase in recent decades. The PREVENT scale, developed by the American Heart Association, aims to enhance cardiovascular risk prediction by incorporating epidemiological changes and emerging risk factors. External validation is essential to ensure its applicability in specific populations such as the Colombian population.

Objective: To evaluate the calibration and discrimination of the PREVENT scale for cardiovascular risk estimation in older adults from northwestern Colombia and compare it with the pooled cohort equations.

Materials and methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted using public health data from Bucaramanga. Demographic variables, cardiovascular risk factors, and anthropometric and biochemical measurements were included in a representative sample of older adults. Competitive risk regression models and ROC curve analysis were applied to compare the predictive performance of PREVENT and the pooled cohort equations.

Results: A total of 10,541 participants were analyzed, with a mean age of 65.67 years, a female predominance (68.8%), and a high prevalence of hypertension (81.4%) and diabetes (28.2%). PREVENT demonstrated superior discrimination (C-statistic: 0.870; 95% CI 0.862-0.878) compared to the pooled cohort equations (0.852; 95% CI 0.846-0.858; p<0.001), with better calibration in men.

Conclusions: The PREVENT scale exhibited high discriminative capacity and acceptable calibration, outperforming the pooled cohort equations. Its implementation could improve cardiovascular risk prediction and patient stratification in the Colombian population.

Article visits 36 | PDF visits

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. 1. Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, et al; GBD-NHLBI-JACC Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases Writing Group. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990-2019: update from the GBD 2019 Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(25):2982-3021. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010
  2. 2. Mohebi R, Chen C, Ibrahim NE, et al. Cardiovascular disease projections in the United States based on the 2020 Census estimates. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80(6):565-578. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.05.033
  3. 3. Khan SS, Matsushita K, Sang Y, et al; Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium and the American Heart Association Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Science Advisory Group. Development and validation of the American Heart Association’s PREVENT Equations. Circulation. 2024;149(6):430-449. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626
  4. 4. Khan SS, Coresh J, Pencina MJ, et al; American Heart Association. Novel prediction equations for absolute risk assessment of total cardiovascular disease incorporating cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2023;148(24):1982-2004. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001191
  5. 5. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 Pt B):2935-2959. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.005
  6. 6. National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES survey methods analytic and guidelines. Accessed March 2024. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/analyticguidelines.aspx
  7. 7. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD). Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(10):735-736. doi:10.7326/L15-5093-2
  8. 8. National Center for Health Statistics. Continuous NHANES. Accessed September 5, 2024. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx
  9. 9. Mirel LB, Mohadjer LK, Dohrmann SM, et al. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: estimation procedures, 2007-2010. Vital Health Stat 2. 2013;(159):1-17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10. Inker LA, Eneanya ND, Coresh J, et al; Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration. New creatinine- and cystatin c-based equations to estimate GFR without race. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(19):1737-1749. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2102953
  11. 11. Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, et al; Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration. Expressing the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate with standardized serum creatinine values. Clin Chem. 2007;53(4):766-772. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2006.077180
  12. 12. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, et al. 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(5):475. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy686
  13. 13. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(suppl 1):S81-S90. doi:10.2337/dc14-S081
  14. 14. Lees JS, Welsh CE, Celis-Morales CA, et al. Glomerular filtration rate by differing measures, albuminuria and prediction of cardiovascular disease, mortality and end-stage kidney disease. Nat Med. 2019;25(11):1753-1760. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0627-8
  15. 15. St Clair P, Gaudette É, Zhao H, Tysinger B, Seyedin R, Goldman DP. Using self-reports or claims to assess disease prevalence: it’s complicated. Med Care. 2017;55(8):782-788. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000753
  16. 16. National Center for Health Statistics. NCHS data linked to NDI mortality files. Accessed September 5, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-linkage/mortality.htm
  17. 17. Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation. 2016;133(6):601-609. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719
  18. 18. Li Y, Sun L, Burstein DS, Getz KD. Considerations of competing risks analysis in cardio-oncology studies: JACC: CardioOncology state-of-the-art review. JACC CardioOncol. 2022;4(3):287-301. doi:10.1016/j.jaccao.2022.08.002
  19. 19. Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB. Overall C as a measure of discrimination in survival analysis: model specific population value and confidence interval estimation. Stat Med. 2004;23(13):2109-2123. doi:10.1002/sim.1802
  20. 20. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons; 2000. doi:10.1002/0471722146
  21. 21. Wu CFJ. Rejoinder: jackknife, bootstrap and other resampling methods in regression analysis. Ann Stat. 1986;14(4):1343-1350. doi:10.1214/aos/1176350161
  22. 22. Zheng Y, Cai T, Jin Y, Feng Z. Evaluating prognostic accuracy of biomarkers under competing risk. Biometrics. 2012;68(2):388-396. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01671.x
  23. 23. Zheng Y, Cai T, Stanford JL, Feng Z. Semiparametric models of time-dependent predictive values of prognostic biomarkers. Biometrics. 2010;66(1):50-60. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01246.x
  24. 24. Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, et al. Erratum for 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(10):1429-1430. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.011
  25. 25. Muntner P, Colantonio LD, Cushman M, et al. Validation of the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease pooled cohort risk equations. JAMA. 2014;311(14):1406-1415. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.2630
  26. 26. Lemeshow S, Hosmer DW Jr. A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;115(1):92-106. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113284
  27. 27. van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):230. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7
  28. 28. Austin PC, Harrell FE Jr, van Klaveren D. Graphical calibration curves and the integrated calibration index (ICI) for survival models. Stat Med. 2020;39(21):2714-2742. doi:10.1002/sim.8570
  29. 29. Crowson CS, Atkinson EJ, Therneau TM. Assessing calibration of prognostic risk scores. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(4):1692-1706. doi:10.1177/0962280213497434
  30. 30. Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, D’Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2008;27(2):157-172. doi:10.1002/sim.2929
  31. 31. Sedlak T, Herscovici R, Cook-Wiens G, et al. Predicted versus observed major adverse cardiac event risk in women with evidence of ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease: a report from WISE (Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation). J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(7):e013234. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.013234
  32. 32. Newson R. SOMERSD: Stata module to calculate Kendall's tau-a, Somers' D and median differences. 2020. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s336401.html
  33. 33. De Cock B, Nieboer D, Van Calster B, Steyerberg E, Vergouwe Y. The CalibrationCurves package: assessing the agreement between observed outcomes and predictions. Accessed September 5, 2024. https://cran.r-project.org/package=CalibrationCurves
  34. 34. Inoue E. CRAN package ‘nricens’. May 30, 2018. Accessed September 5, 2024. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nricens/index.html
  35. 35. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, et al Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ. 2008;336:1475. doi:10.1136/bmj.39609.449676.25
  36. 36. Conroy RM, Pyörälä K, Fitzgerald AP, et al; SCORE project group. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(11):987-1003. doi:10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00114-3
  37. 37. Cooney MT, Dudina AL, Graham IM. Value and limitations of existing scores for the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a review for clinicians. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(14):1209-1227. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.020
  38. 38. Zhao D, Liu J, Xie W, Qi Y. Cardiovascular risk assessment: a global perspective. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;12(5):301-311. doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2015.28
  39. 39. Vyas DA, Eisenstein LG, Jones DS. Hidden in plain sight: reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(9):874-882. doi:10.1056/NEJMms2004740
  40. 40. Shah NS, Ning H, Petito LC, et al. Associations of clinical and social risk factors with racial differences in premature cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2022;146(3):201-210. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058311
  41. 41. Shah NS, Huang X, Petito LC, et al. Social and psychosocial determinants of racial and ethnic differences in cardiovascular health in the United States population. Circulation. 2023;147(3):190-200. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061991
  42. 42. Parr SK, Liang J, Schadler KL, Gilchrist SC, Steele CC, Ade CJ. Anticancer therapy-related increases in arterial stiffness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(14):e015598. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.015598
  43. 43. Clayton ZS, Hutton DA, Mahoney SA, Seals DR. Anthracycline chemotherapy-mediated vascular dysfunction as a model of accelerated vascular aging. Aging Cancer. 2021;2(1-2):45-69. doi:10.1002/aac2.12033
  44. 44. Berkman AM, Lakoski SG. Treatment, behavioral, and psychosocial components of cardiovascular disease risk among survivors of childhood and young adult cancer. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(4):e001891. doi:10.1161/JAHA.115.001891
  45. 45. Armenian SH, Xu L, Ky B, et al. Cardiovascular disease among survivors of adult-onset cancer: a community-based retrospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1122-1130. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.64.0409PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
  46. 46. Florido R, Daya NR, Ndumele CE, et al. Cardiovascular disease risk among cancer survivors: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80(1):22-32. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.042
  47. 47. Scheuermann BC, Parr SK, Schulze KM, et al Associations of cerebrovascular regulation and arterial stiffness with cerebral small vessel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12(23):e032616. doi:10.1161/JAHA.123.032616PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
  48. 48. Whelton SP, Silverman MG, McEvoy JW, et al. Predictors of long-term healthy arterial aging: coronary artery calcium nondevelopment in the MESA Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(12):1393-1400. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.06.019
  49. 49. Palestine AG, Merrill PT, Saleem SM, Jabs DA, Thorne JE. Assessing the precision of ICD-10 codes for uveitis in 2 electronic health record systems. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(10):1186-1190.
  50. 50. Larkin H. What to Know About PREVENT, the AHA’s New Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator. JAMA. 2024;331(4):277–279. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.25115

Information

Perfil de Google Académico

Keywords

QR code