Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) Versus Pooled Cohort Equations for 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate estimation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk underpins primary prevention strategies. The Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), long used in U.S. guidelines, face criticism for risk overestimation and reliance on race-based coefficients. In 2023, the American Heart Association introduced the race-neutral PREVENT equations, which integrate metabolic, renal, and socioeconomic factors to improve calibration and clinical relevance. However, comparative evidence has not been systematically synthesized. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched (January 2010-September 2025) for studies directly comparing PREVENT and PCE within the same adult cohorts. Eligible studies reported discrimination (AUC/C-statistic), calibration, or reclassification metrics. Random-effects models using restricted maximum likelihood pooled standardized mean differences. Heterogeneity, influence, and publication bias were assessed using I², leave-one-out analyses, and Egger's test. RESULTS: Eight studies including 2,296,156 adults without baseline cardiovascular disease and 5-15 years of follow-up, were analyzed. No significant difference in discrimination was observed between PREVENT and PCE (pooled SMD 0.93; 95% CI -1.56 to 3.41; p=0.465). Heterogeneity was substantial (I²=100%), though leave-one-out analyses confirmed robustness. Subgroup analyses by ASCVD versus broader CVD outcomes showed consistent findings. Egger's test revealed no small-study effects (p=0.352). Across individual studies, Several studies reported differences in calibration and risk reclassification between PREVENT and PCE. CONCLUSION: PREVENT and PCE exhibit similar discrimination for 10-year ASCVD risk despite marked heterogeneity. PREVENT may offer differences in calibration and risk reclassification across populations. Ongoing validation across diverse populations is warranted to confirm generalizability and long-term clinical utility across healthcare systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PubMed
Published
2026-06-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/hpc.0000000000000431
Primary Topic
Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) Versus Pooled Cohort Equations for 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction: A Meta-Analysis.

Jawad Basit, JOHN GALLAGHER, Geetha Krishnamoorthy, Meet Patel et al.
PubMed
Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
article

Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) Versus Pooled Cohort Equations for 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction: A Meta-Analysis.

Jawad Basit, JOHN GALLAGHER, Geetha Krishnamoorthy, Meet Patel, Shaunak Mangeshkar, K L Elnaggar, Nezar Nahlawi, R Vempati, Mohammad Hamza, M Chadi Alraies
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate estimation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk underpins primary prevention strategies. The Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), long used in U.S. guidelines, face criticism for risk overestimation and reliance on race-based coefficients. In 2023, the American Heart Association introduced the race-neutral PREVENT equations, which integrate metabolic, renal, and socioeconomic factors to improve calibration and clinical relevance. However, comparative evidence has not been systematically synthesized. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched (January 2010-September 2025) for studies directly comparing PREVENT and PCE within the same adult cohorts. Eligible studies reported discrimination (AUC/C-statistic), calibration, or reclassification metrics. Random-effects models using restricted maximum likelihood pooled standardized mean differences. Heterogeneity, influence, and publication bias were assessed using I², leave-one-out analyses, and Egger's test. RESULTS: Eight studies including 2,296,156 adults without baseline cardiovascular disease and 5-15 years of follow-up, were analyzed. No significant difference in discrimination was observed between PREVENT and PCE (pooled SMD 0.93; 95% CI -1.56 to 3.41; p=0.465). Heterogeneity was substantial (I²=100%), though leave-one-out analyses confirmed robustness. Subgroup analyses by ASCVD versus broader CVD outcomes showed consistent findings. Egger's test revealed no small-study effects (p=0.352). Across individual studies, Several studies reported differences in calibration and risk reclassification between PREVENT and PCE. CONCLUSION: PREVENT and PCE exhibit similar discrimination for 10-year ASCVD risk despite marked heterogeneity. PREVENT may offer differences in calibration and risk reclassification across populations. Ongoing validation across diverse populations is warranted to confirm generalizability and long-term clinical utility across healthcare systems.

PubMed
Ecole Mohammadia d'Ingénieurs (MA), Trinity Health (US), Cleveland Clinic (US), Rawalpindi Medical University (PK), Wayne State University (US), University of Michigan (US), Cleveland Foundation (US), Detroit Medical Center (US), Government Medical College (IN)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.