Prediction model with metabolic syndrome to predict recurrent vascular events in patients with clinically manifest vascular diseases

Background: Although the overall average 10-year cardiovascular risk for patients with manifest atherosclerosis is considered to be more than 20%, actual risk for individual patients ranges from much lower to much higher. We investigated whether information on metabolic syndrome (MetS) or its individual components improves cardiovascular risk stratification in these patients. Design and methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in 3679 patients with clinical manifest atherosclerosis from the Secondary Manifestations of ARTerial disease (SMART) study. Primary outcome was defined as any cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction). Three pre-specified prediction models were derived, all including information on established MetS components. The association between outcome and predictors was quantified using a Cox proportional hazard analysis. Model performance was assessed using global goodness-of-fit fit (chi(2)), discrimination (C-index) and ability to improve risk stratification. Results: A total of 417 cardiovascular events occurred among 3679 patients with 15,102 person-years of follow-up (median follow-up 3.7 years, range 1.6-6.4 years). Compared to a model with age and gender only, all MetS-based models performed slightly better in terms of global model fit (chi(2)) but not C-index. The Net Reclassification Index associated with the addition of MetS (yes/no), the dichotomous MetS-components or the continuous MetS-components on top of age and gender was 2.1% (p = 0.29), 2.3% (p = 0.31) and 7.5% (p = 0.01), respectively. Conclusions: Prediction models incorporating age, gender and MetS can discriminate between patients with clinical manifest atherosclerosis at the highest vascular risk and those at lower risk. The addition of MetS components to a model with age and gender correctly reclassifies only a small proportion of patients into higher-and lower-risk categories. The clinical utility of a prediction model with MetS is therefore limited.