Objective Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are highly preventable non-communicable diseases. ECG is a potential tool for risk stratification with respect to CVD. Our aim was to evaluate ECG’s role in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality prediction.
Methods Participants from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health, free of known CVD at baseline were included. A 12-lead ECG was obtained at baseline (2008–2010). Participants were followed up to 2018 by annual interviews. Deaths were independently reviewed. Cox as well as Fine and Grey multivariable regression models were applied to evaluate if the presence of any major electrocardiographic abnormality (MEA), defined according to the Minnesota Code system, would predict total and cardiovascular deaths. We also evaluated the Net Reclassification Index of adding MEA to the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE).
Results The 13 428 participants (median age 51 years, 45% men) were followed up for 8±1 years. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality occurred in 2.8% and 1.2% of the population, respectively. Prevalent MEA was an independent predictor of overall (HR=2.3, 95% CI 1.7 to 2.9) and cardiovascular mortality (HR=4.6, 95% CI 3.0 to 7.0) after adjustments for age, race, education and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Adding MEA to the SCORE resulted in 9% mis-reclassification in the non-event subgroup and 33% correct reclassification in those with a fatal cardiovascular event.
Conclusion Presence of MEA was an independent predictor of overall and cardiovascular mortality. ECG may have a role in risk prediction of cardiovascular mortality in primary care.
- cardiac risk factors and prevention
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All relevant data were included. All data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MMP-F, LCB and ALPR contributed to the conception or design of the work. SMB, LG, BBD, PAL, MdJMdF, MdCCdA and JGM contributed to the acquisition of dat. MMP-F, LCB, RPdR and ALPR to the analysis or interpretation of data for the work. MMP-F, LCB, SMB and ALPR drafted the manuscript and all critically revised the manuscript. All gave the final approval and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work ensuring integrity and accuracy.
Funding The ELSA‐Brasil baseline study was supported by the Brazilian Ministries of Health and of Science and Technology (grants 01060010.00RS, 01060212.00BA, 01060300.00ES, 01060278.00MG MG, 01060115.00SP and 01060071.00RJ). PAL, SMB, LG and ALPR are supported by a research grant from CNPq. ALPR is also supported by a research grant (Pesquisador Mineiro) from FAPEMIG, the research agency of the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.