Skip to main content
. 2020 Aug;10(4):939–954. doi: 10.21037/cdt.2020.01.16

Table 3. Studies that used the concept of vascular age for CVD risk assessment.

SN C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11
Author Ethnicity Covariates Integrated approach VA
Technique
N Mean CA (years) Mean VA (years) Risk stratification CCVRC Results
R1 Stein et al. [2004] (45) American cIMT Linear Regression 82 55.8±9.0 65.5±18.9 FRS NA
R2 Gepner et al. [2006] (50) American cIMT Linear Regression 506 55.0±7.4 61.8±11.6 FRS NA
R3 Junyent et al. [2006] (58) Spanish cIMT Linear Regression 409 49±11 Mean CA +14.5 FRS FRS (CA) =9.2%±8.3%; FRS (VA) =9.8%±8.5%
R4 D’Agostino et al. [2008] (5) White American CCVRF Point-based system 8,491 NA NA
R5 Naqvi et al. [2010] (59) cIMT Linear Regression 136 56.9±10.1 61.6±11.4 FRS NA
R6 Khalil et al. [2010] (51) American cIMT Linear Regression 20 55.8 68.5 FRS NA
R7 Cuende et al. [2010] (52) European CCVRF SCORE chart-based 205,178 NA NA SCORE
R8 Adolphe et al. [2011] (46) Asian cIMT Linear Regression 2,291 40.7±11.7 32.2±15.8 NA NA
R9 Romanens et al. [2014] (53) Swiss TPA Linear Regression 1,500 59.9±9 49±21 AGLA AGLAca vs. AGLAaa: mean risk =8% vs. 9%; AUC =0.65 vs. 0.78
R10 Sharma et al. [2015] (69) Indian CCVRF FRS point Based 2,483 46±8 53±34
R11 Andrade et al. [2016] (60) Brazil cIMT Linear Regression 96 44.4±6.4 53.8±12.5 FRS FRS (VA) =17.2%±10%; FRS (CA) =12.5%±7.8%
R12 Proposed [2019] Japanese, Indian, Caucasian CUSIP + CCVRF Linear Regression and MLR 648 FRS & ASCVD FRS (CA): AUC =0.62; FRS (IVA): AUC =0.78; ASCVD (CA): AUC =0.67; ASCVD (IVA): AUC =0.72

CVD, cardiovascular diseases; VA, vascular age; CCVRC, conventional cardiovascular risk calculators; FRS, framingham risk score; CA, chronological age; ASCVD, atherosclerosis CVD; AUC, area-under-the-curve.