Optimizing Long-term Cardiovascular Risk Stratification: Integrating Biomarkers into the Very High-Risk ASCVD Definition in Asian Patients

Le résumé fourni par la source

The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) cholesterol guideline defines very high-risk (VHR) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) patients to guide intensive lipid-lowering therapy. This study sought to evaluate VHR's effectiveness in assessing cardiovascular (CV) risk in an Asian population and examine the predictive value of additional biomarkers for improving risk stratification. 26,752 ASCVD patients were prospectively enrolled at Fuwai Hospital (2017–2018). VHR was defined as multiple major ASCVD events or one major event with multiple high-risk conditions. The primary outcome was a composite of 3-year CV events, including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularization. 14,475 (54.1 %) patients were classified as VHR, with higher 3-year event rates than non-VHR (9.6 % vs. 7.3 %). Hemoglobin (Hb), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were significant CV risk influencers in VHR patients (hazard ratios [95 % CI]: 0.93 [0.90–0.96], 1.13 [1.06–1.21], 1.07 [1.04–1.11], 0.73 [0.61–0.89], respectively), but not in non-VHR patients. Within the VHR category, patients with ≥2 abnormal biomarkers (Hb <12 g/dL for men, <11 g/dL for women; hs-CRP >3 mg/L; Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL; HDL-C < 1 mmol/L) were categorized as Very Very High Risk (VVHR), showing significantly higher event rates than those with fewer abnormal biomarkers (11.7 % vs. 8.9 %, P < 0.001). The VHR definition effectively identifies high-risk Asian patients but can be refined by integrating biomarker-based high-risk conditions. The proposed VVHR category enhances risk stratification, identifying those who may benefit most from intensive lipid-lowering and residual risk management.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.