Background: The prognostic significance of chest pain is well established in patients with coronary artery disease, but still ill defined in primary prevention. Therefore, the aim of our analysis was to assess the prognostic value of different forms of chest pain in a large cohort of primary care subjects under the conditions of contemporary modalities of care in primary prevention, including measurement of serum levels of the biomarker NT-pro-BNP. Design: We carried out a post-hoc analysis of the prospective DETECT cohort study. Methods: In a total of 5570 unselected subjects, free of coronary artery disease, within the 55,518 participants of the cross-sectional DETECT study, we assessed chest pain history by a comprehensive questionnaire and measured serum NT-pro-BNP levels. Three types of chest pain, which were any chest pain, exertional chest pain and classical angina, were defined. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs = cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization procedures) were assessed during a 5-year follow-up period. Results: During follow-up, 109 subjects experienced a MACE. All types of reported chest pain were associated with an approximately three-fold increased risk for the occurrence of incident MACEs, even after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. Any form of reported chest pain had a similar predictive value for MACEs as a one-time measurement of NT-pro-BNP. However, adding a single measurement of NT-pro-BNP and the information on chest pain resulted in reclassification of approximately 40% of subjects, when compared with risk prediction based on established cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusions: In primary prevention, self-reported chest pain and a single measurement of NT-pro-BNP substantially improve cardiovascular risk prediction and allow for risk reclassification of approximately 40% of the subjects compared with assessing classical cardiovascular risk factors alone.

Background: Several selected population-based studies have emphasized the significance of resting heart rate as an independent cardiovascular risk factor. However, there are no data available for using resting heart rate as a cardiovascular risk predictor in contemporary primary care. Thus, the aim of our analysis was to examine the clinical value of the measurement of resting heart rate in a large, unselected population-based cohort of primary care subjects under the conditions of contemporary primary prevention. Design: Prospective, population-based cohort study. Methods: We examined a subgroup of 5320 unselected primary care subjects free of coronary artery disease from the nationwide, longitudinal Diabetes Cardiovascular Risk Evaluation Targets and Essential Data for Commitment of Treatment (DETECT) cohort study, which was conducted from 2003 to 2008. Results: During the follow-up time of 5 years, 258 events were reported. Elevated resting heart rate was not associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular events (HR = 0.75, p = 0.394), cardiovascular mortality (HR = 0.71, p = 0.616) or major cardiovascular events (HR = 0.77, p = 0.376). By cross-sectional analysis, elevated heart rate clustered with markers of the metabolic syndrome, like increased blood pressure (systolic: OR = 5.54, p < 0.0001; diastolic: OR = 3.82, p < 0.0001), elevated fasting plasma glucose levels (OR = 8.84, p < 0.0001), hypertriglyceridaemia (OR = 22.16, p = 0.001), and obesity (body mass index OR = 0.89, p < 0.0001). Assessment of resting heart rate in clinical practice had minimal and non-significant additional prognostic value compared to established cardiovascular risk factors as judged by C statistics (C = 0.001, p = 0.979). Conclusion: The measurement of resting heart rate in the daily routine of primary care does not provide incremental prognostic information for cardiovascular risk stratification.