Potential impact of replacing SCORE with SCORE-2 on risk classification and statin eligibility – a coronary calcium score correlation study. (3rd October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Paiva, M; Gomes, D; Freitas, P; Santos, R; Presume, J; Lopes, P; Matos, D; Guerreiro, S; Santos, A; Saraiva, S; Mendes, M; Ferreira, A
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 43(2022)Supplement 2
• Publication Date: 2022-10-03
• Subjects: Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.2257
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Recently, the European Society of Cardiology issued new algorithms to estimate the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), along with new age-specific thresholds to classify individuals as low-to-moderate, high, or very-high risk. The aim of this study was to compare the latest SCORE-2 model with the older SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation) in their ability to identify individuals with high coronary artery calcium score (CACS), and assess the relationship between potential eligibility for statin therapy and CACS. Methods: Individuals 40–69 years old without diabetes or known ASCVD were identified in a single center registry of patients undergoing CACS and coronary CT angiography for suspected coronary artery disease. SCORE and SCORE-2 were calculated and used with each patient's untreated LDL-C values to assess eligibility for statin therapy. High CACS was defined as an Agatston score ≥100. Results: A total of 389 pts (46% men, mean age 58±8 years) were included, of which 15% (n=60) were active smokers. The mean systolic blood pressure and untreated LDL-C values were 136±17 mmHg and 155±65 mg/dL, respectively. The proportion of patients classified as low-to-moderate risk, high risk, and very high risk was 93%, 6% and 1% using the SCORE algorithm, and 42%, 44%, and 14% using SCORE-2, respectively. Overall, 218 patients (56%) would have their risk category revised upwards, while no patients would be downgraded. The median CACS was 5 (IQR 0–71 AU), with 166 patients (43%) having CACS = 0, and 81 (21%) presenting CACS values ≥100. SCORE and SCORE-2 showed similar discriminative power to identify patients with CACS ≥100 (C-statistic 0.77, 95% CI 0.71–0.82, vs. 0.75, 95% CI 0.69–0.80, P=0.109 for comparison]. The up-reclassification of risk conveyed by SCORE-2 affected patients across all categories of CACS (Fig. 1). The proportion of patients in whom statin therapy would generally be indicated was higher with the SCORE-2 criteria vs. the SCORE algorithm (61% vs. 29%, respectively, p<0.001). The broadening of potential indication for statin therapy spanned all categories of CACS, including patients with CACS = 0 (Fig. 2). Conclusion: Even though the discriminative power of SCORE-2 is similar to the older SCORE, the introduction of age-specific thresholds results in the up-reclassification of risk in roughly half of the patients. The application of SCORE-2 will broaden statin eligibility overall, not only in patients with high atherosclerotic burden, but also in those with CACS = 0. These findings support the use of risk modifiers in selected patients to improve the effectiveness of statin therapy. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.