Objectives Compare the predictive performance of Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs) and Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) model between women with and without a... Show moreObjectives Compare the predictive performance of Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs) and Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) model between women with and without a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (hHDP) and determine the effects of recalibration and refitting on predictive performance. Methods We included 29 751 women, 6302 with hHDP and 17 369 without. We assessed whether models accurately predicted observed 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk (calibration) and whether they accurately distinguished between women developing CVD during follow-up and not (discrimination), separately for women with and without hHDP. We also recalibrated (updating intercept and slope) and refitted (recalculating coefficients) the models. Results Original FRS and PCEs overpredicted 10-year CVD risks, with expected:observed (E:O) ratios ranging from 1.51 (for FRS in women with hHDP) to 2.29 (for PCEs in women without hHDP), while E:O ratios were close to 1 for SCORE. Overprediction attenuated slightly after recalibration for FRS and PCEs in both hHDP groups. Discrimination was reasonable for all models, with C-statistics ranging from 0.70-0.81 (women with hHDP) and 0.72-0.74 (women without hHDP). C-statistics improved slightly after refitting 0.71-0.83 (with hHDP) and 0.73-0.80 (without hHDP). The E:O ratio of the original PCE model was statistically significantly better in women with hHDP compared with women without hHDP. Conclusions SCORE performed best in terms of both calibration and discrimination, while FRS and PCEs overpredicted risk in women with and without hHDP, but improved after recalibrating and refitting the models. No separate model for women with hHDP seems necessary, despite their higher baseline risk. Show less
