metricas
covid
Buscar en
Medicina Clínica (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Medicina Clínica (English Edition) External validation of the FAscore scale to evaluate the risk of atrial fibrilla...
Journal Information
Vol. 163. Issue 8.
Pages 397-403 (October 2024)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
9
Vol. 163. Issue 8.
Pages 397-403 (October 2024)
Original article
Full text access
External validation of the FAscore scale to evaluate the risk of atrial fibrillation in patients with arterial hypertension
Validación externa de la escala FAscore para evaluar el riesgo de fibrilación auricular en pacientes con hipertensión arterial
Visits
9
Luis Mújica-Jaureguia, Vicente Bertomeu-Gonzálezb, Álvaro Carbonell-Solivab, Domingo Orozco-Beltránb,c,d, Vicente F. Gil-Guillénb,c,d,e, Rauf Nouni-Garcíab,c,e,
Corresponding author
raufrng@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, Adriana López-Pinedab,c,d, Concepción Carratalá-Munuerab,c,d, Jose A. Quesadab,c,d
a Albía Health Center, Osakidetza, Bilbao, Spain
b Clinical Medicine Department, School of Medicine, University of Miguel Hernández de Elche, Ctra. Nacional N-332 s/n, 03550 San Juan de Alicante, Spain
c Network for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), 03550 San Juan de Alicante, Spain
d Primary Care Research Center, Miguel Hernández University, Elche, Alicante, Spain
e Institute for Health and Biomedical Research of Alicante, General University Hospital of Alicante, Diagnostic Center, 5th Floor, Pintor Baeza Street, 12, 03110 Alicante, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (3)
Show moreShow less
Tables (2)
Table 1. Sample characteristics (n=36,809).
Table 2. Predictive indicators, according to risk cutoffs as estimated by FAscore.
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Background and aim

To use a risk scale or predictive model outside the population of origin, it is necessary to evaluate the predictive indicators through external validation. The aim was to validate the FAscore, originally constructed in hypertensive patients in primary care in the Valencian Region, in an external cohort with hypertension in primary care in the Basque Country.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was designed to perform an external validation of the FAscore app in patients affiliated with 26 health centers in the municipality of Bilbao. The area under the ROC curve and predictive indicators were calculated with their 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Thirty-six thousand eight hundred nine patients were included: 53.6% (n=19,719) were women, the mean age was 75.1 years, 41.8% (n=15,381). Over the four-year follow-up period, 1420 patients were diagnosed with AF (cumulative incidence 3.9%). The median risk estimated by FAscore was 4.5%, and the 5th, 25th, 75th, and 95th percentiles were 1.0%, 2.5%, 6.1%, and 14.8%, respectively. The ROC curve for the risk estimated by FAscore and the cases of atrial fibrillation observed was AUC 0.715 (95% CI 0.703–0.727). The 5% risk cutoff provides a sensitivity of 70.8%, specificity of 61.0%, positive predictive value of 6.8%, negative predictive value of 98.1%, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 1.82 and 0.48, respectively.

Conclusion

This study reports on the external validation of the atrial fibrillation risk scale in hypertensive patients, which shows an acceptable predictive capacity. The best-performing risk cutoff, providing good predictive indicators, can be set at 5%.

Keywords:
Cardiology
Risk factors
Atrial fibrillation
Primary health care
Abbreviations:
FAscore
AF
AMI
BMI
PPV
NPV
Resumen
Introducción y objetivo

Para utilizar una escala de riesgo fuera de la población de origen es necesario evaluar los indicadores predictivos mediante una validación externa. El objetivo fue validar el FAscore en una cohorte externa con hipertensión en atención primaria en el País Vasco.

Métodos

Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo para validación externa de la aplicación FAscore en pacientes de 26 centros de salud en el municipio de Bilbao. Se calculó área bajo la curva ROC e indicadores predictivos con sus intervalos de confianza al 95% (IC 95%).

Resultados

Se incluyeron 36.809 pacientes: el 53,6% (n=19.719) eran mujeres y la edad promedio fue de 75,1 años (41,8%; n=15.381). Durante el periodo de seguimiento de 4 años se diagnosticó fibrilación auricular en 1.420 pacientes (incidencia acumulativa 3,9%). La mediana del riesgo estimado por el FAscore fue del 4,5% y los percentiles 5, 25, 75 y 95 fueron 1,0%, 2,5%, 6,1% y 14,8%, respectivamente. La curva ROC para el riesgo estimado por el FAscore y los casos de fibrilación auricular observados fue de AUC 0,715 (IC 95%: 0,703-0,727). El punto de corte del 5% de riesgo proporciona una sensibilidad del 70,8%, una especificidad del 61,0%, un valor predictivo positivo del 6,8%, un valor predictivo negativo del 98,1% y razones de probabilidad positiva y negativa de 1,82 y 0,48, respectivamente.

Conclusión

La validación externa de la escala de riesgo muestra una capacidad predictiva aceptable. El punto de corte de riesgo que mejor funciona se puede establecer en el 5%.

Palabras clave:
Cardiología
Factores de riesgo
Fibrilación auricular
Atención primaria
Full Text
Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common chronic arrhythmia in adults. Currently, the estimated prevalence worldwide is around 2–4%, but this figure is expected to double or even triple by 2060 due longer life expectancies and improved detection of the condition.1 In Spain, the reported prevalence of AF varies by study, but it is estimated at 4.4% in people over 40 years of age,2 9% in those over 50,3 and 5–15% in those over 80.4 AF is thus an important health problem and one of the leading reasons to seek health care in Western countries.5

The risk of AF increases with age and is associated with different risk factors, such as smoking, alcohol, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and previous heart disease.6 The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (EACPR) considers that AF leads to increased morbidity as well as a 40–90% rise in mortality from stroke, dementia, heart failure, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI).7

Even if AF is not specifically associated with any concomitant condition or underlying morbidity, in most cases there is some relevant history of disease. Several pathological processes affect the atrium, including collagen, lipid, and amyloid deposits that contribute to the genesis and perpetuation of AF,8 a phenomenon known as atrial cardiomyopathy.9 Several studies point to the fundamental role of arterial hypertension as a risk factor for AF, which may be behind up to 14% of all cases. Hypertension is present in around 70% of patients with AF, and anywhere from 49% to 90% of participants in randomized trials.10,11 On the other hand, comorbidities such as diabetes can complicate the effects of anticoagulation therapy or control strategies, increasing the risk of adverse cardiovascular events and death.12 Similarly, hypertension may increase the risk of stroke or systemic embolism.13

In recent years, several community-based predictive models for AF have been developed, such as the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE-AF)14; the Framingham Heart Study risk for Atrial Fibrillation (FHS-AF)15; and Congestive Heart Failure, Hypertension, Age, Diabetes, Previous Stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc),16 with predictive C-index values of around 0.70.

In a recent study,17 our research group fitted a predictive model for the appearance of AF at four years in patients over 40 years of age with hypertension, based on four predictors: body mass index (BMI), age, sex, and a diagnosis of heart failure. The study included patients who attended primary care in the Valencian Region from 2008 to 2012. The resulting predictive model was a multivariable Cox model, adjusted for a population of 12,206 patients, with an incidence of AF of 3.2% at a mean follow-up of three years and four years at most; it yielded an acceptable predictive capacity (C-index 0.69 estimated by cross-validation). Using this model as a basis, a point-based risk scale was constructed based on the Sullivan et al.’s approach,18 and an application for Android mobile devices called FAscore was developed. The app calculates four-year AF risk using four predictor questions, does not store any patient information, is free, and can be downloaded from the Google Play Store.

To use a risk scale or predictive model outside the population of origin, it is necessary to evaluate the predictive indicators through external validation. The differential characteristics of patients in each region of Spain can affect the prevalence of AF and the behavior of predictive models. Thus, the aim of this study was to validate the FAscore, originally constructed in hypertensive patients in primary care in the Valencian Region, in an external cohort of patients with hypertension in primary care in the Basque Country.

Material and methods

This retrospective cohort study was designed to perform an external validation of the FAscore app in patients affiliated with 26 health centers in the municipality of Bilbao (Basque Country, Spain), covering a total population of 342,484 inhabitants as of 1 January 2023, according to census data. The study took place between September and December 2023, complies with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by the Office for Responsible Research of Miguel Hernández University (Alicante, Spain; authorization code AUT.DMC.JAQR.230912). Since this was a clinical history review study, the need for informed consent was waived.

The study included people aged 40 years or older, with a diagnosis of hypertension (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision [ICD-10] I10-I15) recorded in their medical records before 31 December 2019, and registered with the public primary care health centers of Bilbao. Patients with a diagnosis of AF or cardiovascular event (ICD-10: I20–I25, I60–I69) before the diagnosis of hypertension and the start of follow-up were excluded, as were patients aged 95 years or older (the maximum age envisaged in the risk scale). The outcome variable was the occurrence of AF (ICD-10 diagnosis: I48) over follow-up, from 1 January 2016 (or date of hypertension diagnosis if this was after 1 January 2016) to 31 December 2019 (four years’ maximum follow-up).

Patients electronic medical records were reviewed to collect the variables necessary to calculate AF risk using the FAscore risk scale (at the date nearest the beginning of follow-up): sex (male/female), age (years), BMI (kg/m2), and diagnosis of heart failure (ICD-10 I50, yes/no). In addition, information was collected on other variables: diagnosis of dyslipidemia (ICD-10 E78, yes/no), treatment for hypertension with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARA-II) (yes/no), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), albumin (g/dL), creatinine (mg/dL), total cholesterol (mg/dL), basal glucose (mg/dL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (mg/dL), and triglycerides (mg/dL).

Statistical analysis

A descriptive analysis of the variables was performed by calculating absolute and relative frequencies of categorical variables, and the mean, standard deviation (SD), and range of quantitative variables.

The risk of AF occurrence at four years was calculated using the FAscore risk point scale, entering in the baseline values of the study variables to obtain the risk, expressed as a percentage and illustrated with a histogram. External validation of the FAscore consisted of comparing the risk estimated using the FAscore with the AF diagnoses observed in the study population. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) was calculated, together with its 95% confidence interval (CI), as a predictive indicator of the FAscore. Calibration graph was calculated.

To evaluate the optimal cutoff to best predict a case of AF, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), and likelihood ratios at each cutoff point, along with their 95% Cis, and Youden index. Analyses were performed with the R program v.4.2.2.2.19

Results

A total of 58,116 patients met the inclusion criteria. After excluding 19,948 (34.3%) patients who did not present valid values for all the FAscore variables and 1359 (2.3%) who were over 94 years of age, the final sample included in the analysis comprised 36,809 patients: 53.6% (n=19,719) were women, the mean age was 75.1 years, 41.8% (n=15,381) were overweight, and 39.2% (n=14,451) were obese. In addition, 3.8% (n=1403) had heart failure, 20.3% (n=7464) dyslipidemia, and 47.4% (n=17,430) were being treated with ACE inhibitors/ARA-II for hypertension. Blood tests showed mean values of 200.1mg/dL for total cholesterol, 58.8mg/dL for high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, 107.1mg/dL for basal glucose, and 130.4mg/dL for triglycerides. Mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 80/138mmHg (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics (n=36,809).

Categorical variables  n 
Sex
Male  17,090  46.4 
Female  19,719  53.6 
Body mass index
Normal weight (<25kg/m26977  19.0 
Overweight (25–29.9kg/m215,381  41.8 
Obesity, class I (30–34.9kg/m29576  26.0 
Obesity, class II (≥35kg/m24875  13.2 
Heart failure
No  35,406  96.2 
Yes  1403  3.8 
Dyslipidemia
No  29,345  79.7 
Yes  7464  20.3 
Treatment with ACE inhibitors/ARA-II for hypertension
No  19,379  52.6 
Yes  17,430  47.4 
Atrial fibrillation
No  35,389  96.1 
Yes  1420  3.9 
Quantitative variables  n  Mean  SD  Range 
Age, years  36,809  75.12  11.43  41.00–94.00 
Albumin, g/dL  25,993  4.45  0.89  2.11–49.10 
Creatinine, mg/dL  34,652  0.92  0.38  0.32–8.57 
Total cholesterol, mg/dL  34,802  200.12  39.66  81.00–372.00 
Basal glucose, mg/dL  35,012  107.14  32.86  41.00–496.00 
HDL cholesterol, mg/dL  34,208  58.81  17.27  10.00–159.00 
Triglycerides, mg/dL  34,239  130.39  71.77  25.00–787.00 
Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg  36,683  80.35  10.80  37.00–145.00 
Systolic blood pressure, mmHg  36,711  138.23  16.83  60.00–248.00 

HDL: high-density lipoprotein.

Over the four-year follow-up period, 1420 patients were diagnosed with AF (cumulative incidence 3.9%). The median risk estimated by FAscore was 4.5% (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Risk score of atrial fibrillation measured by FAscore app, in a community-based hypertensive population in the Basque Country (Spain).

(0.03MB).

Fig. 2 shows the ROC curve for the risk estimated by FAscore and the cases of AF observed (AUC 0.715, 95% CI 0.703–0.727). Table 2 shows the possible risk cutoff points. The 5% cutoff provides a sensitivity of 70.8%, specificity of 61.0%, PPV of 6.8%, NPV of 98.1%, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 1.82 and 0.48, respectively, with a maximum Youden index. A total of 14,803 (40.2%) patients were observed with a risk greater than or equal to 5% measured by FAscore, of which 70.8% were diagnosed with AF during follow-up.

Fig. 2.

Predictive capacity of FAscore for detecting atrial fibrillation in a community-based hypertensive population in the Basque Country (Spain).

(0.05MB).
Table 2.

Predictive indicators, according to risk cutoffs as estimated by FAscore.

Cutoff (%)  Sensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)Y  Positive predictive value (95% CI)Negative predictive value (95% CI)Positive likelihood ratio (95% CI)Negative likelihood ratio (95% CI)
1.5  0.992  (0.987–0.997)  0.110  (0.07–0.113)  0.102  0.043  (0.041–0.045)  0.997  (0.995–0.999)  1.115  (1.108–1.122)  0.073  (0.042–0.128) 
2.0  0.971  (0.962–0.980)  0.196  (0.192–0.200)  0.167  0.046  (0.044–0.048)  0.994  (0.992–0.996)  1.208  (1.196–1.221)  0.148  (0.109–0.200) 
2.5  0.971  (0.962–0.980)  0.196  (0.192–0.200)  0.167  0.046  (0.044–0.048)  0.994  (0.992–0.996)  1.208  (1.196–1.221)  0.148  (0.109–0.200) 
3.0  0.937  (0.924–0.950)  0.311  (0.306–0.316)  0.248  0.052  (0.049–0.055)  0.992  (0.990–0.994)  1.360  (1.339–1.381)  0.203  (0.166–0.248) 
3.5  0.854  (0.836–0.872)  0.456  (0.451–0.461)  0.310  0.059  (0.056–0.062)  0.987  (0.985–0.989)  1.570  (1.533–1.607)  0.320  (0.282–0.363) 
4.0  0.854  (0.836–0.872)  0.456  (0.451–0.461)  0.310  0.059  (0.056–0.062)  0.987  (0.985–0.989)  1.570  (1.533–1.607)  0.320  (0.282–0.363) 
4.5  0.854  (0.836–0.872)  0.456  (0.451–0.461)  0.310  0.059  (0.056–0.062)  0.987  (0.985–0.989)  1.570  (1.533–1.607)  0.320  (0.282–0.363) 
5.0  0.708  (0.6840.732)  0.610  (0.6050.615)  0.318  0.068  (0.0640.072)  0.981  (0.9790.983)  1.815  (1.7511.881)  0.479  (0.442–0.520) 
5.5  0.708  (0.684–0.732)  0.610  (0.605–0.615)  0.318  0.068  (0.064–0.072)  0.981  (0.979–0.983)  1.815  (1.751–1.881)  0.479  (0.442–0.520) 
6.0  0.708  (0.684–0.732)  0.610  (0.605–0.615)  0.318  0.068  (0.064–0.072)  0.981  (0.979–0.983)  1.815  (1.751–1.881)  0.479  (0.442–0.520) 
6.5  0.494  (0.468–0.520)  0.772  (0.768–0.776)  0.266  0.080  (0.074–0.086)  0.974  (0.972–0.976)  2.167  (2.049–2.292)  0.655  (0.622–0.690) 
7.0  0.494  (0.468–0.520)  0.772  (0.768–0.776)  0.266  0.080  (0.074–0.086)  0.974  (0.972–0.976)  2.167  (2.049–2.292)  0.655  (0.622–0.690) 
7.5  0.494  (0.468–0.520)  0.772  (0.768–0.776)  0.266  0.080  (0.074–0.086)  0.974  (0.972–0.976)  2.167  (2.049–2.292)  0.655  (0.622–0.690) 
8.0  0.494  (0.468–0.520)  0.772  (0.768–0.776)  0.266  0.080  (0.074–0.086)  0.974  (0.972–0.976)  2.167  (2.049–2.292)  0.655  (0.622–0.690) 
8.5  0.299  (0.275–0.323)  0.884  (0.881–0.887)  0.183  0.093  (0.085–0.101)  0.969  (0.967–0.971)  2.578  (2.369–2.806)  0.793  (0.766–0.821) 
9.0  0.299  (0.275–0.323)  0.884  (0.881–0.887)  0.183  0.093  (0.085–0.101)  0.969  (0.967–0.971)  2.578  (2.369–2.806)  0.793  (0.766–0.821) 
9.5  0.299  (0.275–0.323)  0.884  (0.881–0.887)  0.183  0.093  (0.085–0.101)  0.969  (0.967–0.971)  2.578  (2.369–2.806)  0.793  (0.766–0.821) 
10.0  0.299  (0.275–0.323)  0.884  (0.881–0.887)  0.183  0.093  (0.085–0.101)  0.969  (0.967–0.971)  2.578  (2.369–2.806)  0.793  (0.766–0.821) 
10.5  0.299  (0.275–0.323)  0.884  (0.881–0.887)  0.183  0.093  (0.085–0.101)  0.969  (0.967–0.971)  2.578  (2.369–2.806)  0.793  (0.766–0.821) 
11.0  0.299  (0.275–0.323)  0.884  (0.881–0.887)  0.183  0.093  (0.085–0.101)  0.969  (0.967–0.971)  2.578  (2.369–2.806)  0.793  (0.766–0.821) 
11.5  0.159  (0.140–0.178)  0.947  (0.945–0.949)  0.106  0.107  (0.094–0.120)  0.966  (0.964–0.968)  3.000  (2.641–3.408)  0.888  (0.868–0.908) 
12.0  0.159  (0.140–0.178)  0.947  (0.945–0.949)  0.106  0.107  (0.094–0.120)  0.966  (0.964–0.968)  3.000  (2.641–3.408)  0.888  (0.868–0.908) 
12.5  0.159  (0.140–0.178)  0.947  (0.945–0.949)  0.106  0.107  (0.094–0.120)  0.966  (0.964–0.968)  3.000  (2.641–3.408)  0.888  (0.868–0.908) 
13.0  0.159  (0.140–0.178)  0.947  (0.945–0.949)  0.106  0.107  (0.094–0.120)  0.966  (0.964–0.968)  3.000  (2.641–3.408)  0.888  (0.868–0.908) 
13.5  0.159  (0.140–0.178)  0.947  (0.945–0.949)  0.106  0.107  (0.094–0.120)  0.966  (0.964–0.968)  3.000  (2.641–3.408)  0.888  (0.868–0.908) 
14.0  0.159  (0.140–0.178)  0.947  (0.945–0.949)  0.106  0.107  (0.094–0.120)  0.966  (0.964–0.968)  3.000  (2.641–3.408)  0.888  (0.868–0.908) 
14.5  0.159  (0.140–0.178)  0.947  (0.945–0.949)  0.106  0.107  (0.094–0.120)  0.966  (0.964–0.968)  3.000  (2.641–3.408)  0.888  (0.868–0.908) 
15.0  0.063  (0.050–0.076)  0.982  (0.981–0.983)  0.045  0.120  (0.097–0.143)  0.963  (0.961–0.965)  3.500  (2.823–4.340)  0.954  (0.941–0.967) 

Y: Youden index.

Bold values: maximum value of Youden index.

Fig. 3 shows the calibration graph, using eight intervals according to the Hosmer–Lemeshow approach, indicating moderate calibration.

Fig. 3.

Hosmer–Lemeshow calibration graph with eight intervals.

(0.06MB).
Discussion

This study reports on the external validation of the AF risk scale in hypertensive patients (FAscore), which shows an acceptable predictive capacity (AUC 0.715). The best-performing risk cutoff, providing good predictive indicators, can be set at 5%.

Some differences were observed in the characteristics of the populations used in the original study and the external validation study (Valencian Region vs. Basque Country), both set in primary care: the Baque population was older (mean age 75 years vs. 65 years), had a higher proportion of women (53% vs. 47%), a lower prevalence of obesity (39% vs. 48%) and dyslipidemia (20.3% vs. 42.7%), a higher prevalence of heart failure (3.8% vs. 1.1%), and a larger proportion under pharmacological treatment for hypertension (47% vs. 38%). The cumulative incidence of AF at four years was similar in both populations (3.9% vs. 3.2%). These discordancies may be attributed to differences in behavioral patterns and management of hypertension in the two settings, plus the 10-year gap between the performance of each study. Despite these differences, the predictive capacity of FAscore in the external population (AUC 0.72) can be considered good and is similar to that obtained in the original population (C-index 0.69), demonstrating that FAscore can be applied to patients with hypertension in different regions of Spain.

In the original study, Orozco-Beltran et al.17 did not propose an optimal cutoff point for estimating AF risk with the FAscore. The present study shows that the 5% cutoff yields acceptable sensitivity (70%) and specificity (61%), very high NPV (98%), but low PPV (6.8%), with a maximum Youden index. The PPV is the probability of AF occurring in the following four years when the scale estimates a risk greater than 5%. The low value in our study can be explained by the low cumulative incidence of AF (3.9%).

Similarly, the probability that a patient will not develop AF in the next four years when the FAscore risk is less than 5% is very high: 98%. With these data, and given the low frequency of AF, the FAscore could be used as a screening tool, due to its high NPV and moderate sensitivity, and confirm the diagnosis with opportunistic electrocardiograms or monitoring with ambulatory electrocardiographic recording systems such as a Holter device, watches, textiles, patches, or other portable systems.20

Scientific societies recommend preventive measures and early detection strategies,7 but there are multiple diagnostic pathways, and population-based screening is unfeasible, so careful selection of patients who can benefit most from scales such as the one presented in this study can be of great utility.

Several predictive models for AF have been applied in cohort studies in the general population21–24 as well as specifically in men,25 the biracial population,26 and the Asian population.27 In a recent meta-analysis,28 review authors identified 10 predictive models for AF: the length of follow-up ranged from 5 to 11 years, and the number of predictors, from 5 to 18 variables, with a maximum of 27 unique variables. Age was the only parameter used in all models; other predictors were sex; BMI; blood pressure; the presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, heart failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, and COPD; and behavioral risk factors like smoking and alcohol intake. The FAscore uses only four variables, which coincide with some of these other models: age, sex, BMI, and the presence of heart failure. The difference between the number and type of predictors may be due to the fact that these studies are applied to the general population, while the FAscore is indicated only in people with hypertension. Regarding predictive capacity, the meta-analysis estimates a C-index of 0.70 (95% CI 0.66–0.76). This discriminative capacity is similar to that obtained in the present study with an external population. Only one study has been undertaken in a population with diabetes and hypertension, with a total of 14 variables, with a C-index of 0.69 in external validation.29 On the other hand, most scales make 10-year predictions; however, the possibility of shorter-term predictions (four years in our study) enables better tailoring of preventive measures and a more immediate perception of risk, both for health professionals and patients.

The limitations of the study include the possible existence of unknown predictors not included in the model, although with only four predictors (age, sex, BMI, and presence of heart failure), the FAscore achieves an acceptable predictive capacity. While medical record review studies may also have data quality limitations, these are common in studies of this type, and external validation is acceptable.

Conclusion

This investigation presents the external validation in the Basque country of the AF risk scale in hypertensive patients (FAscore), demonstrating a satisfactory predictive capacity with an AUC of 0.715 in an external cohort, and could be a useful tool for clinical practice in patients with arterial hypertension. Optimal predictive performance is achieved with a risk cutoff set at 5%.

What is known about the topic

The FAscore was originally constructed in hypertensive patients in primary care in the Valencian Region.

In the original study did not propose an optimal cutoff point for estimating AF risk with the FAscore.

What this study contributes

The external validation in the Basque Country of the atrial fibrillation risk scale in hypertensive patients shows an acceptable predictive capacity.

The best-performing risk cutoff, providing good predictive indicators, can be set at 5%.

Ethical considerations

Since this was a clinical history review study, the need for informed consent was waived.

Funding

This study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) and Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII)/European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (RICAPPS: RD21/0016/0024). The funder played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Data availability

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request with the corresponding author.

References
[1]
G. Hindricks, T. Potpara, N. Dagres, E. Arbelo, J.J. Bax, C. Blomström-Lundqvist, et al.
2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): the Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC.
Eur Heart J, 42 (2021), pp. 373-498
[2]
J.J. Gómez-Doblas, J. Muñiz, J.J. Martin, G. Rodríguez-Roca, J.M. Lobos, P. Awamleh, et al.
Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in Spain. OFRECE study results.
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed), 67 (2014), pp. 259-269
[3]
M.G. Valdivieso, D. Orozco-Beltrán, A. López-Pineda, V.F. Gil-Guillén, J.A. Quesada, C. Carratalá-Munuera, et al.
Early detection of atrial fibrillation in community pharmacies – CRIFAFARMA Study.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther, 27 (2022),
[4]
J.M. Baena-Díez, M. Grau, R. Forés, D. Fernández-Bergés, R. Elosua, M. Sorribes, et al.
Prevalence of atrial fibrillation and its associated factors in Spain: an analysis of 6 population-based studies. DARIOS study.
Rev Clin Esp (Barc), 214 (2014), pp. 505-512
[5]
M. Zoni-Berisso, F. Lercari, T. Carazza, S. Domenicucci.
Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: European perspective.
Clin Epidemiol, 6 (2014), pp. 213-220
[6]
L. Staerk, B. Wang, S.R. Preis, M.G. Larson, S.A. Lubitz, P.T. Ellinor, et al.
Lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation according to optimal, borderline, or elevated levels of risk factors: cohort study based on longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study.
BMJ, 361 (2018), pp. k1453
[7]
B. Gorenek, A. Pelliccia, E.J. Benjamin, G. Boriani, H.J. Crijns, R.I. Fogel, et al.
European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (EACPR) position paper on how to prevent atrial fibrillation endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS).
Europace, 19 (2017), pp. 190-225
[8]
A. Xintarakou, S. Tzeis, S. Psarras, D. Asvestas, P. Vardas.
Atrial fibrosis as a dominant factor for the development of atrial fibrillation: facts and gaps.
Europace, 22 (2020), pp. 342-351
[9]
M. Li, Y. Ning, G. Tse, A.M. Saguner, M. Wei, J.D. Day, et al.
Atrial cardiomyopathy: from cell to bedside.
ESC Heart Fail, 9 (2022), pp. 3768-3784
[10]
P. Verdecchia, F. Angeli, G. Reboldi.
Hypertension and atrial fibrillation: doubts and certainties from basic and clinical studies.
Circ Res, 122 (2018), pp. 352-368
[11]
G.Y.H. Lip, A. Coca, T. Kahan, G. Boriani, A.S. Manolis, M.H. Olsen, et al.
Hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias: a consensus document from the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and ESC Council on Hypertension, endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardíaca y Electrofisiología (SOLEACE).
Europace, 19 (2017), pp. 891-911
[12]
A. García-Fernández, M.A. Esteve-Pastor, I. Roldán-Rabadán, J. Muñiz, M. Ruiz Ortiz, Á. Cequier, et al.
Relationship of adverse events to quality of anticoagulation control in atrial fibrillation patients with diabetes: real-world data from the FANTASIIA Registry.
[13]
J. Wang, D.P. Zhang, H.B. Liu, J.C. Zhong, X.C. Yang.
Should atrial fibrillation patients with hypertension as an additional risk factor of the CHA2DS2-VASc score receive oral anticoagulation?.
J Geriatr Cardiol, 15 (2018), pp. 229-234
[14]
A. Maheshwari, F.L. Norby, E.Z. Soliman, R. Koene, M. Rooney, W.T. O’Neal, et al.
Prediction of atrial fibrillation risk in the general population with analysis of P-wave axis (from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study).
Am J Cardiol, 120 (2017), pp. 1980-1984
[15]
P. Kumarathurai, M.R. Mouridsen, N. Mattsson, B.S. Larsen, O.W. Nielsen, T.A. Gerds, et al.
Atrial ectopy and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide as predictors of atrial fibrillation: a population-based cohort study.
Europace, 19 (2017), pp. 364-370
[16]
B.F. Gage, C. Van Walraven, L. Pearce, R.G. Hart, P.J. Koudstaal, B.S. Boode, et al.
Selecting patients with atrial fibrillation for anticoagulation: stroke risk stratification in patients taking aspirin.
Circulation, 110 (2004), pp. 2287-2292
[17]
D. Orozco-Beltran, J.A. Quesada, V. Bertomeu-Gonzalez, J.M. Lobos-Bejarano, J. Navarro-Perez, V.F. Gil-Guillen, et al.
A new risk score to assess atrial fibrillation risk in hypertensive patients (ESCARVAL-RISK Project).
[18]
L.M. Sullivan, J.M. Massaro, R.B. D’Agostino.
Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: the Framingham Study risk score functions.
Stat Med, 23 (2004), pp. 1631-1660
[19]
R Core Team.
R: a language and environment for statistical computing.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing, (2023),
[20]
L. Fácila Rubio, C. Lozano-Granero, R. Vidal-Pérez, V. Barrios, R. Freixa-Pamias.
New technologies for the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of cardiovascular diseases.
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed), 77 (2024), pp. 88-96
[21]
A. Alonso, B.P. Krijthe, T. Aspelund, K.A. Stepas, M.J. Pencina, C.B. Moser, et al.
Simple risk model predicts incidence of atrial fibrillation in a racially and geographically diverse population: the CHARGE-AF consortium.
J Am Heart Assoc, 2 (2013), pp. e000102
[22]
J. Berntsson, J.G. Smith, P.M. Nilsson, B. Hedblad, O. Melander, G. Engström.
Pro-atrial natriuretic peptide and prediction of atrial fibrillation and stroke: the Malmö Preventive Project.
Eur J Prev Cardiol, 24 (2017), pp. 788-795
[23]
Y. Kokubo, M. Watanabe, A. Higashiyama, Y.M. Nakao, K. Kusano, Y. Miyamoto.
Development of a basic risk score for incident atrial fibrillation in a Japanese general population – the Suita study.
Circ J, 81 (2017), pp. 1580-1588
[24]
R. Pfister, J. Bragelmann, G. Michels, N.J. Wareham, R. Luben, K.T. Khaw.
Performance of the CHARGE-AF risk model for incident atrial fibrillation in the EPIC Norfolk cohort.
Eur J Prev Cardiol, 22 (2015), pp. 932-939
[25]
E. Svennberg, B. Lindahl, L. Berglund, K.M. Eggers, P. Venge, B. Zethelius, et al.
NT-proBNP is a powerful predictor for incident atrial fibrillation – validation of a multimarker approach.
Int J Cardiol, 223 (2016), pp. 74-81
[26]
A.M. Chamberlain, S.K. Agarwal, A.R. Folsom, E.Z. Soliman, L.E. Chambless, R. Crow, et al.
A clinical risk score for atrial fibrillation in a biracial prospective cohort (from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study).
Am J Cardiol, 107 (2011), pp. 85-91
[27]
T.F. Chao, C.E. Chiang, T.J. Chen, J.N. Liao, T.C. Tuan, S.A. Chen.
Clinical risk score for the prediction of incident atrial fibrillation: derivation in 7220654 Taiwan patients with 438930 incident atrial fibrillations during a 16-year follow-up.
J Am Heart Assoc, 10 (2021), pp. e020194
[28]
J.C.L. Himmelreich, L. Veelers, W.A.M. Lucassen, R.B. Schnabel, M. Rienstra, H.C.P.M. van Weert, et al.
Prediction models for atrial fibrillation applicable in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Europace, 22 (2020), pp. 684-694
[29]
R. Abellana, F. Gonzalez-Loyola, J.M. Verdu-Rotellar, A. Bustamante, E. Palà, J.L. Clua-Espuny, et al.
Predictive model for atrial fibrillation in hypertensive diabetic patients.
Eur J Clin Invest, 51 (2021), pp. e13633
Copyright © 2024. The Author(s)
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos