Strategies for personalized risk assessment for CVD management

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the major causes of death in the world. The correct stratification of patients may significantly contribute to the optimization of the required health care strategies. As result, clinical guidelines recommend the use of risk assessment tools (scores) to identify the CVD risk of each patient in clinical practice. This work proposes a set of strategies for the personalization of CVD risk assessment, supported on the evidence that a specific CVD risk assessment tool may have good performance within a given group of patients and might perform poorly within other groups. In particular, two main personalization methods based on the proper creation of groups of patients are proposed: i) clustering patients approach; ii) similarity measures approach. These two methodologies were validated in a Portuguese population (460 ACS-NSTEMI patients). The similarity measures approach had the best performance, achieving values of sensitivity, specificity and geometric mean of, respectively, 77.7%, 63.2%, 69.7%. These values represent an enhancement in relation to the best performance obtained with current CVD risk assessment tools, respectively 78.5%, 53.2%, 64.4%.

[1]  R. Jackson Guidelines on preventing cardiovascular disease in clinical practice , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  E W Steyerberg,et al.  Predictors of outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation. Results from an international trial of 9461 patients. The PURSUIT Investigators. , 2000, Circulation.

[3]  Nicos Maglaveras,et al.  HeartCycle: Compliance and effectiveness in HF and CAD closed-loop management , 2009, 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[4]  Jorge Henriques,et al.  Cardiovascular disease risk assessment innovative approaches developed in HeartCycle project , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[5]  Jian Pei,et al.  Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, 3rd edition , 2006 .

[6]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Comparisons of established risk prediction models for cardiovascular disease: systematic review , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  C. Tappert,et al.  A Survey of Binary Similarity and Distance Measures , 2010 .

[8]  Peter Herbison,et al.  Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) hospital discharge risk score accurately predicts long-term mortality post acute coronary syndrome. , 2007, American heart journal.

[9]  Lluís A. Belanche Muñoz,et al.  Feature selection algorithms: a survey and experimental evaluation , 2002, 2002 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, 2002. Proceedings..

[10]  Eric O. Postma,et al.  Dimensionality Reduction: A Comparative Review , 2008 .

[11]  Peter Scarborough,et al.  Cardiovascular disease in Europe: epidemiological update. , 2014, European heart journal.

[12]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Exploring Strategies for Training Deep Neural Networks , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[13]  Shah Ebrahim,et al.  European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: executive summary: Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (Constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invit , 2007, European heart journal.

[14]  E. Antman,et al.  The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: A method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. , 2000, JAMA.