Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 25, 2026
Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
The new "intermediate risk" group: a comparative analysis of the new 2013 ACC/AHA risk assessment guidelines versus
Michael J Blaha1, Zeina A Dardari1, Roger S Blumenthal1
1Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Insights
The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines create a smaller, lower-risk intermediate group for cardiovascular disease (CVD). This new definition shortens the time men remain intermediate risk before becoming high risk.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Preventive Medicine
- Risk Assessment
Background:
- The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines redefined cardiovascular disease (CVD) intermediate risk.
- Prior guidelines also defined intermediate risk categories.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically compare intermediate risk groups identified by prior guidelines and the new ACC/AHA guidelines.
- To analyze the size, characteristics, and duration of intermediate risk status under different guidelines.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of data from 30,005 adult men without known CVD.
- Calculation of Framingham Risk Score and ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Estimator.
- Comparison of intermediate risk groups (ATP III vs. new ACC/AHA) and definition of time-to-high-risk.
Main Results:
- The new ACC/AHA intermediate risk group is smaller, younger, more likely African-American, and has a lower risk factor burden.
- The new intermediate risk group is 37% the size of the ATP III group, while the new high risk group is 103% larger.
- Men remain intermediate risk for 3 years under new guidelines versus 8 years under prior guidelines (63% shorter duration).
Conclusions:
- The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines yield a smaller, lower-risk, and more transient intermediate risk group.
- These findings necessitate a revised understanding of intermediate risk in cardiovascular assessment.
- Implications exist for risk stratification, clinical decisions, and primary prevention pharmacotherapy.
Background:
The 2013 ACC/AHA Report on the Assessment of Cardiovascular (CVD) Risk redefined "intermediate risk". We sought to critically compare the intermediate risk groups identified by prior guidelines and the new ACC/AHA guidelines.
Methods:
We analyzed data from 30,005 adult men free of known CVD from a large, multi-ethnic study of middle-aged adults. The Framingham Risk Score was calculated using published equations, and CVD risk was calculated using the new ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Estimator. We first compared the size and characteristics of the intermediate risk group identified by the old (ATP III, 10-20% 10-year CHD risk) and new guidelines (5-7.4% 10-year CVD risk). We then defined time-to-high-risk as the length of time an individual patient resides in the intermediate risk group before progressing to high risk status based on advancing age alone.
Results:
The mean age of the study population was 53 ± 13 years, and 24% were African-American. Patients identified as intermediate risk by the new ACC/AHA Guidelines were younger and more likely to be African-American and have lower risk factor burden (all p < 0.05). The new intermediate risk group was just 37% the size of the traditional ATP III intermediate risk group, while the new high risk group was 103% larger. Under the new guidelines, men remain intermediate risk for an average of just 3 years, compared to 8 years under the prior guidelines (63% shorter time-to-high-risk, p < 0.05), before progressing to high risk based on advancing age alone.
Conclusion:
The new 2013 ACC/AHA risk assessment guidelines produce a markedly smaller, lower absolute risk, and more temporary "intermediate risk" group. These findings reshape the modern understanding of "intermediate risk", and have distinct implications for risk assessment, clinical decision making, and pharmacotherapy in primary prevention.
Related Concept Videos
01:12Relative Risk
01:12Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:20Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
01:10Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure
01:25Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management