Ir para o menu de navegação principal Ir para o conteúdo principal Ir para o rodapé

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





Seção
Artículos de Investigación

Como Citar
Hernández, J. A. (2025). EVALUACIÓN DEL RIESGO CARDIOVASCULAR MEDIANTE LA ESCALA PREVENT EN ADULTOS MAYORES DEL NOROCCIDENTE DE COLOMBIA, 2014-2024. Archivos De Medicina , 26(1). https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5448.2026
Baixar Citação

Dimensions
PlumX

Como Citar

Hernández, J. A. (2025). EVALUACIÓN DEL RIESGO CARDIOVASCULAR MEDIANTE LA ESCALA PREVENT EN ADULTOS MAYORES DEL NOROCCIDENTE DE COLOMBIA, 2014-2024. Archivos De Medicina , 26(1). https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.26.1.5448.2026

Baixar Citação

##articleSummary.license##
Jorge Andres Hernández

Artigos mais lidos pelo mesmo(s) autor(es)

Introducción: Las enfermedades cardiovasculares son la principal causa de mortalidad a nivel global, con un incremento significativo en las últimas décadas. La escala PREVENT, desarrollada por la American Heart Association, busca mejorar la predicción del riesgo cardiovascular considerando cambios epidemiológicos y nuevos factores de riesgo. Su validación externa es fundamental para garantizar su aplicabilidad en poblaciones específicas como la colombiana.

Objetivo: Evaluar la calibración y discriminación de la escala PREVENT en la estimación del riesgo cardiovascular en adultos mayores del noroccidente de Colombia y compararla con el modelo de cohortes agrupadas.

Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio de cohorte prospectivo con datos de salud pública de Bucaramanga. Se incluyeron variables demográficas, factores de riesgo cardiovasculares y mediciones antropométricas y bioquímicas en una muestra representativa de adultos mayores. Se aplicó un modelo de regresión de riesgos competitivos y análisis de curvas ROC para comparar el desempeño predictivo de PREVENT y el modelo de cohortes agrupadas.

Resultados: Se analizaron 10.541 participantes con una edad media de 65,67 años, predominio femenino (68,8 %), alta prevalencia de hipertensión (81,4 %) y diabetes (28,2 %). La discriminación de PREVENT fue superior (estadística C: 0,870; IC95% 0,862-0,878) en comparación con el modelo de cohortes agrupadas (0,852; IC95% 0,846-0,858; p<0,001), con mejor calibración en hombres.

Conclusiones: La escala PREVENT mostró una alta capacidad discriminativa y calibración aceptable, superando al modelo de cohortes agrupadas. Su implementación podría mejorar la predicción del riesgo cardiovascular y la estratificación de pacientes en la población colombiana.


Visão geral 36 | Visualizações de PDF


Downloads

Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.
  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