Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 4, 2026
Hydra, a Computer-Based Platform for Aiding Clinicians in Cardiovascular Analysis and Diagnosis
Published on: September 26, 2018
Assessments tools for risk prediction of cardiovascular diseases
Vitali Gorenoi1, Matthias P Schönermark, Anja Hagen
1Abteilung für Epidemiologie, Sozialmedizin und Gesundheitssystemforschung, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Deutschland.
Insights
Cardiovascular risk prediction tools are often not validated for the German population, potentially leading to inaccurate risk assessments. Caution is advised when using these instruments for clinical decisions in Germany.
Area of Science:
- Epidemiology
- Public Health
- Cardiology
Background:
- Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) pose significant global health and economic burdens.
- Existing risk prediction instruments (equations, scores, charts) aid in identifying individuals for targeted CVD prevention.
- The transferability and comparability of these instruments across different populations remain unclear.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the existence, transferability, and comparability of CVD risk prediction instruments.
- To assess the validity of these instruments when applied to populations beyond those in which they were developed.
Main Methods:
- A systematic literature search of medical databases (2004-2008) and hand searches were conducted.
- Included publications described prognostic instruments for CVDs or addressed their external validity and comparability.
- Analysis focused on instrument design, validation data (calibration, discrimination), and population-specific performance.
Main Results:
- Most CVD risk prediction instruments are derived from US cohorts (e.g., Framingham), with few based on German populations (e.g., PROCAM).
- Commonly used variables include sex, age, smoking, lipid status, and blood pressure.
- Validation studies show variable calibration (0.9-1.1) and discrimination (0.7-0.9) for instruments applied to new populations, with limited data for Germany.
Conclusions:
- Geographic variations in CVD morbidity and mortality are key limitations for instrument transferability.
- Recalibration is a potential strategy to improve the applicability of existing risk prediction tools.
- Current CVD risk prediction instruments require critical caution for use in Germany due to insufficient validation on the local population, risking inaccurate risk estimations.
Scientific Background:
Cardiovascular diseases have an enormous epidemiological and economic importance. For the selection of persons with increased total cardiovascular risk for individual-targeted (e. g. drug-based) prevention interventions different risk prognosis instruments (equations, point scores and table charts) were derived from studies or databases. The transferability of these prognostic instruments on the populations not examined in these data sources as well as their comparability are not clear.
Research Questions:
The evaluation addresses the questions on the existence of instruments for risk prediction of cardiovascular diseases, their transferability and comparability.
Methods:
A systematic literature search was performed in the medical electronic databases in April 2008 beginning from 2004 and was completed with a hand search. Publications on the prognostic instruments for cardiovascular diseases as well as publications addressing external validity and/or comparing prognostic instruments were included in the evaluation.
Results:
The systematic lierature search yielded 734 hits. Three systematic reviews, 38 publications with descriptions of prognostic instruments and 29 publications with data on the validity of the prognosis instruments were identified. Most risk prognosis instruments are based on the Framingham cohort of the USA. Only the PROCAM study is completely based on the German reference population. Almost all prognostic instruments use the variables sex, age, smoking, different parameters of the lipid status and of the blood pressure. Different cardiovascular events are considered to be an end parameter in the prognosis instruments. The time span for predicted events in the studies mostly comprises ten years. Data on calibration of the prognosis instruments (a quotient of the predicted by the observed risk) are presented in nearly half of the studies on the validation, however in no study from Germany. Only single studies find the levels of calibration between 0.9 and 1.1. Many studies on the transferability of the prognosis instruments show a value of the discrimination (correct differentiation of persons with different risk levels, best value 1.0) between 0.7 and 0.8, few studies between 0.8 and 0.9 and no study over 0.9. The studies addressing the discrimination of the prognostic instruments on the German population almost always find values between 0.7 and 0.8. The comparison of the validity of different risk prognosis instruments shows a trend for a better calibration and a better discrimination for the prognosis instruments examined on the derivation and/or validation cohorts of one of the compared prognostic instruments. Comparing the prognostic instruments on other cohorts, the newly derived Framingham prognostic instruments show a better discrimination in comparison with previously derived instruments. No studies exists comparing different prognostic instruments on the German population.
Discussion:
The geographic variance of the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality supposed to be the most important factor limiting the transferability of the prognostic instruments. An appropriate recalibration is considered to be an approach for the improvement of the transferability.
Conclusions:
The identified instruments for the risk prediction of cardiovascular diseases are insufficiently validated on the German population. Their use can lead to false risk estimation for a single person. Therefore, the existing prognostic instruments should be used for the informed decision-making and for the therapy selection in Germany only with critical caution.
Related Concept Videos
01:23Assessment of the Cardiovascular System I: Subjective Data
Initial Enquiry
Ask the patient about their primary concern and thoroughly explore all reported symptoms.
Medical History
Investigate past illnesses affecting the cardiovascular system, such as angina, anemia, rheumatic fever, congenital heart disease, stroke, thrombophlebitis, dysrhythmias, varicosities
Inquire about symptoms...
01:25Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT
01:30Coronary Artery Disease I: Introduction
01:19Blood Studies for Cardiovascular System II: CRP, Hcy, and Cardiac Natriuretic Peptide Markers
These markers indicate stress or strain on the heart muscle:
Natriuretic Peptides (BNP)
Cardiac myocytes produce these hormones in response to ventricular stretching...
01:29Assessment of the Cardiovascular System II: Inspection
Head and Neck
01:20Blood Studies for Cardiovascular System I: Cardiac Biomarkers
The essential diagnostic tools for detecting myocardial necrosis and monitoring individuals suspected of having acute coronary syndrome (ACS) include:
Troponins
Troponins, particularly cardiac troponins I and T, are the most precise and sensitive markers of myocardial injury. They are detectable within 4-6 hours of myocardial injury and remain...