P3397Risk Or Benefit IN Screening for CArdiovascular disease (ROBINSCA): results from screening for a high cardiovascular disease risk by using a risk prediction model or coronary artery calcium scoring

Introduction

The ROBINSCA (Risk Or Benefit IN Screening for CArdiovascular disease) trial is a large-scale population-based randomized controlled screening trial with the aim to investigate whether screening for a high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by means of either the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) model or coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring followed by preventive treatment is effective in reducing morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD). This study shows the results of the CVD risks as assessed by the two screening tools.

Methods

Based on the Dutch population registry, 394,058 men aged 45–74 years and women aged 55–74 years received an information brochure, an invitation to participate in the trial, a baseline questionnaire with waist circumference tape and an informed consent form. Eligible individuals with an expected high CVD risk were randomized (1:1:1) into a control arm (n=14,519), intervention arm A (n=14,478) or intervention arm B (n=14,450). In the control arm, usual care was continued. In intervention arm A, participants were screened for a high risk of CVD using the SCORE model based on traditional risk factors. In intervention arm B, CAC scoring after computed tomography scanning was used for screening. After screening en risk communication, preventive treatment according to the Dutch guidelines is advised for high risk persons.

Results

Screening uptake was 84.2% in intervention arm A and 89.6% in intervention arm B. Of the screened participants, 48.7% was female, median age at screening was 62 (Interquartile Range 10), 35.2% was high educated, 19.6% was baseline smoker and 41.4% had a positive family history of myocardial infarction. The assessed CVD risk status according to SCORE screening was stratified into three risk categories; 45.1% was at low risk (SCORE<10%), 26.5% was at intermediate risk (SCORE 10–20%), and 28.4% was at high risk (SCORE ≥20%). According to CAC screening, 76.0% was at low risk (Agatston <100), 15.1% was at high risk (Agatston 100–399), and 8.9% was at very high risk (Agatston ≥400). Associations between baseline variables and increased CVD risk will be analyzed soon and will be available in summer 2019.

Conclusions

Using different screening tools resulted in reclassification of the CVD risk. CAC screening caused a substantial shift to more low risk individuals. This might, when screening is found to be effective, lead to less overtreatment in prevention of CVD events. Future 5-year follow-up data should provide evidence about whether population-based screening with subsequent preventive treatment is (cost-)effective in reducing CHD-related morbidity and mortality.