Table 2 Comparison of the performance of the ACC/AHA model and ACC/AHA model with addition of NT-proBNP
From: Implications of the ACC/AHA risk score for prediction of heart failure: the Rotterdam Study
| Â | Risk thresholds | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Â | 5% | 7.5% | 20% |
Men | Â | Â | Â |
 Sensitivity (95% CI) | |||
  ACC/AHA | 80% (78% to 82%) | 50% (47% to 53%) | 9% (8% to 11%) |
  ACC/AHA + NT-proBNP | 83% (81% to 85%) | 58% (55% to 61%) | 16% (14% to 18%) |
 Specificity (95% CI) | |||
  ACC/AHA | 70% (69% to 71%) | 90% (89% to 91%) | 99% (99% to 100%) |
  ACC/AHA + NT-proBNP | 72% (71% to 73%) | 90% (89% to 91%) | 99% (99% to 100%) |
 Positive predicted value (95% CI) | |||
  ACC/AHA | 27% (25% to 28%) | 40% (37% to 43%) | 88% (80% to 96%) |
  ACC/AHA + NT-proBNP | 29% (27% to 30%) | 44% (41% to 46%) | 84% (79% to 90%) |
 Negative predicted value (95% CI) | |||
  ACC/AHA | 96% (96% to 97%) | 93% (92% to 93%) | 89% (87% to 89%) |
  ACC/AHA + NT-proBNP | 97% (96% to 97%) | 94% (93% to 95%) | 90% (89% to 90%) |
Women | Â | Â | Â |
 Sensitivity (95% CI) | |||
  ACC/AHA | 81% (79% to 83%) | 52% (49% to 55%) | 9% (8% to 12%) |
  ACC/AHA + NT-proBNP | 85% (83% to 87%) | 63% (60% to 66%) | 21% (18% to 23%) |
 Specificity (95% CI) | |||
  ACC/AHA | 67% (66% to 78%) | 89% (88% to 90%) | 99% (99% to 100%) |
  ACC/AHA + NT-proBNP | 69% (68% to 70%) | 87% (86% to 88%) | 99% (99% to 100%) |
 Positive predicted value (95% CI) | |||
  ACC/AHA | 19% (18% to 20%) | 31% (29% to 33%) | 57% (48% to 67%) |
  ACC/AHA + NT-proBNP | 21% (20% to 22%) | 33% (31% to 35%) | 69% (64% to 74%) |
 Negative predicted value (95% CI) | |||
  ACC/AHA | 97% (97% to 98%) | 95% (95% to 96%) | 92% (91% to 93%) |
  ACC/AHA + NT-proBNP | 98% (98% to 99%) | 96% (95% to 96%) | 93% (92% to 93%) |