4.7 Article

Refining Long-Term Prediction of Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes - The VILDIA Score

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-04935-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Erwin Schrodinger Fellowship of the Austrian Science Fund [FWF J 3319-B13]
  2. 6th Framework Program of the European Union [LSHM-CT-2004-503485]
  3. 7th of Framework Program of the European Union [201668]
  4. DFG [GrK 1041]
  5. Centre of Excellence Metabolic Diseases Baden-Wuerttemberg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiovascular risk assessment in patients with diabetes relies on traditional risk factors. However, numerous novel biomarkers have been found to be independent predictors of cardiovascular disease, which might significantly improve risk prediction in diabetic patients. We aimed to improve prediction of cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients by investigating 135 evolving biomarkers. Based on selected biomarkers a clinically applicable prediction algorithm for long-term cardiovascular mortality was designed. We prospectively enrolled 864 diabetic patients of the LUdwigshafen RIsk and Cardiovascular health (LURIC) study with a median follow-up of 9.6 years. Independent risk factors were selected using bootstrapping based on a Cox regression analysis. The following seven variables were selected for the final multivariate model: NT-proBNP, age, male sex, renin, diabetes duration, Lp-PLA2 and 25-OH vitamin D3. The risk score based on the aforementioned variables demonstrated an excellent discriminatory power for 10-year cardiovascular survival with a C-statistic of 0.76 (P < 0.001), which was significantly better than the established UKPDS risk engine (C-statistic = 0.64, P < 0.001). Net reclassification confirmed a significant improvement of individual risk prediction by 22% (95% confidence interval: 14-30%) compared to the UKPDS risk engine (P < 0.001). The VILDIA score based on traditional cardiovascular risk factors and reinforced with novel biomarkers outperforms previous risk algorithms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据