Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr;4(4):e189-e199.
doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30023-4.

5-year versus risk-category-specific screening intervals for cardiovascular disease prevention: a cohort study

Affiliations

5-year versus risk-category-specific screening intervals for cardiovascular disease prevention: a cohort study

Joni V Lindbohm et al. Lancet Public Health. 2019 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Clinical guidelines suggest preventive interventions such as statin therapy for individuals with a high estimated 10-year risk of major cardiovascular events. For those with a low or intermediate estimated risk, risk-factor screenings are recommended at 5-year intervals; this interval is based on expert opinion rather than on direct research evidence. Using longitudinal data on the progression of cardiovascular disease risk over time, we compared different screening intervals in terms of timely detection of high-risk individuals, cardiovascular events prevented, and health-care costs.

Methods: We used data from participants in the British Whitehall II study (aged 40-64 years at baseline) who had repeated biomedical screenings at 5-year intervals and linked these data to electronic health records between baseline (Aug 7, 1991, to May 10, 1993) and June 30, 2015. We estimated participants' 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and fatal or non-fatal stroke) using the revised Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) calculator. We used multistate Markov modelling to estimate optimum screening intervals on the basis of progression rates from low-risk and intermediate-risk categories to the high-risk category (ie, ≥7·5% 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event). Our assessment criteria included person-years spent in a high-risk category before detection, the number of major cardiovascular events prevented and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and screening costs.

Findings: Of 6964 participants (mean age 50·0 years [SD 6·0] at baseline) with 152 700 person-years of follow-up (mean follow-up 22·0 years [SD 5·0]), 1686 participants progressed to the high-risk category and 617 had a major cardiovascular event. With the 5-year screening intervals, participants spent 7866 (95% CI 7130-8658) person-years unrecognised in the high-risk group. For individuals in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high risk categories, 21 alternative risk category-based screening intervals outperformed the 5-yearly screening protocol. Screening intervals at 7 years, 4 years, and 1 year for those in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high-risk category would reduce the number of person-years spent unrecognised in the high-risk group by 62% (95% CI 57-66; 4894 person-years), reduce the number of major cardiovascular events by 8% (7-9; 49 events), and raise 44 QALYs (40-49) for the study population.

Interpretation: In terms of timely preventive interventions, the 5-year screening intervals were unnecessarily frequent for low-risk individuals and insufficiently frequent for intermediate-risk individuals. Screening intervals based on risk-category-specific progression rates would perform better in terms of preventing major cardiovascular disease events and improving cost-effectiveness.

Funding: Medical Research Council, British Heart Association, National Institutes on Aging, NordForsk, Academy of Finland.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of sample selection at each clinical examination
Figure 2
Figure 2
Estimated mean time spent in each major cardiovascular event 10-year-risk category and transition probabilities to the next risk category, incident major cardiovascular event (fatal or non-fatal) and non-cardiovascular death Transition probabilities between groups and to events or deaths are presented next to arrows as percentage (95% CI). Mean time spent is calculated on the basis of all transitions and includes all individuals who visited the category during follow-up. The high-risk category has been split into two: high risk (7·5 to <15·0%) and very high risk (≥15%) to describe risk progression.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of 21 risk-category-specific screening intervals with the uniform 5-year screening interval (A) Person-years spent unrecognised in high-risk category, (B) number of major cardiovascular events prevented, (C) difference in health-care costs, and (D) QALYs gained in the study population over the time of 20 years. The screening intervals are in years for those in low-risk, intermediate-low-risk, and intermediate-high-risk categories. Data are estimates with 95% CIs. QALY=quality-adjusted life-year.

Comment in

References

    1. Ministry of Health . Ministry of Health; Wellington, New Zealand: 2018. Cardiovascular disease risk assessment and management for primary care.
    1. Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S. 2016 European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: the Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR) Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2315–2381. - PMC - PubMed
    1. WHO . World Health Organization; Geneva: 2007. Prevention of cardiovascular disease: guidelines for assessment and management of cardiovascular risk.
    1. JBS3 Board Joint British Societies' consensus recommendations for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (JBS3) Heart. 2014;100(suppl 2):ii1–ii67. - PubMed
    1. Goff DC, Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G. 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. Circulation. 2014;129(25 suppl 2):S49–S73. - PubMed

Publication types