Methods of data collection and definitions of cardiac outcomes in the Rotterdam Study

Abstract

The prevalence of cardiovascular diseases is rising. Therefore, adequate risk prediction and identification of its determinants is increasingly important. The Rotterdam Study is a prospective population-based cohort study ongoing since 1990 in the city of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. One of the main targets of the Rotterdam Study is to identify the determinants and prognosis of cardiovascular diseases. Case finding in epidemiological studies is strongly depending on various sources of follow-up and clear outcome definitions. The sources used for collection of data in the Rotterdam Study are diverse and the definitions of outcomes in the Rotterdam Study have changed due to the introduction of novel diagnostics and therapeutic interventions. This article gives the methods for data collection and the up-to-date definitions of the cardiac outcomes based on international guidelines, including the recently adopted cardiovascular disease mortality definitions. In all, detailed description of cardiac outcome definitions enhances the possibility to make comparisons with other studies in the field of cardiovascular research and may increase the strength of collaborations.

Role of Prestroke Vascular Pathology in Long-Term Prognosis After Stroke

“…27 Occurrence of transient ischemic attacks and atrial fibrillation was assessed through active follow-up and verified using standardized definitions similar to the follow-up for stroke. 28,29 However, follow-up for atrial fibrillation was only complete until 2010, which means that people with atrial fibrillation after 2010 were missed.…”

Cerebral Vasomotor Reactivity and Risk of Mortality

“…A consensus panel, led by a physician with expertise in cardiovascular disease, adjudicated the final cause of death according to ICD-10 codes using standardized definitions, as described in detail previously. 21 The follow-up was complete until January 1, 2011, for 97.1% of potential person-years.…”

“…23 Prevalent vascular disease (myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease) was, except for peripheral arterial disease, assessed through active follow-up and adjudicated using standardized definitions, as described in detail previously. 21 Peripheral arterial disease was assessed using the anklebrachial index. Ankle-brachial index was assessed by computing the ratio of systolic blood pressure at the right and left ankle to the systolic blood pressure at the right arm.…”

Measurement of ECG abnormalities and cardiovascular risk classification: a cohort study of primary care patients in the Netherlands

“…The discriminative value of both models was expressed with the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC). The 10-year absolute risk to develop e3 British Journal of General Practice, January 2015 [18][19][20] was calculated. The NRI quantifies the percentage of correct movement across categories for those with and without events.…”

“…Newly-diagnosed CV diseases were identified using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) codes in the GP records. 17,18 A CV event was defined as the occurrence of MI (K75), angina pectoris (K74), stroke (K90), transient ischaemic attack (K89), atherosclerosis (K91), heart failure (K77), aortic aneurysm (K99.1), peripheral arterial disease (K92.1), or vascular dementia (P70.2) during follow-up. For participants who died during follow-up, it was determined if the cause of death had been of CV origin.…”