Investigators retrospectively analyzed 154 individuals referred for enhanced cardiovascular evaluation before deployment to the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). The cohort skewed male (79.9%) with a mean age of 44.6 ± 14.6 years. Referral was driven most often by an abnormal ECG—reported in 70.8% of cases—rather than by symptomatic ischemia or established coronary disease. Data were assembled across three temporal windows (2018–2020, 2021–2023, 2024–2026). The source reported collection of demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, cardiac testing results, and deployment clearance outcomes; it did not provide a prospective screening protocol or randomized assignment to any risk tool.
The study team calculated three widely used risk estimates for participants when feasible: the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), and the AHA PREVENT risk models. Not all calculators were computable for every individual: PREVENT was calculable in 70.8% of the cohort, while PCE could be calculated in 52.6% of participants. The authors reported median 10-year risk estimates for the cohort by model: PREVENT 2.7% (IQR 1.1–6.6), FRS 2.3% (IQR 0.5–7.1), and PCE 6.1% (IQR 2.4–9.2). These numeric summaries reflect a generally low-to-borderline risk profile in a fitness-selected population but also show systematic differences across tools.
When investigators evaluated participants with all three scores available (n=72 per the source), they found that 51% were classified discordantly by the different calculators. The source reported a strong agreement between PREVENT and FRS (correlation = 0.77) and poor agreement between PREVENT and PCE (correlation 0.24–0.35). Across the cohort PCE tended to estimate higher 10-year risk than either PREVENT or FRS.
The authors noted practical differences that affect applicability: PREVENT incorporates renal function, extends to heart failure risk, is race-agnostic, and applies from age 30—features the study team argued make it more suitable for this deployment population. The source explicitly stated that PREVENT agreed closely with FRS, which may ease clinical transition toward PREVENT-based workflows. The article did not include sensitivity, specificity, or outcome-based calibration curves comparing the calculators against major adverse cardiovascular events, so comparative prognostic performance beyond observed evacuations was not available from the report.
Deployment outcomes were reported plainly. Overall, 132 participants (85.7%) were cleared for deployment. Eight individuals (5.2%) were declared not physically qualified (NPQ); six of those NPQs were attributed to cardiovascular causes. The authors also tabulated operational events during the study period: 22 cardiac medical evacuations occurred, and 21 of those evacuations involved individuals who had not undergone prior advanced cardiovascular screening. One individually screened participant was medically evacuated for symptoms that were later determined not to have a cardiac cause. The source did not enumerate the specific cardiac diagnoses that precipitated evacuation for the unscreened group, nor did it provide follow-up mortality or long-term morbidity data.
Based on their retrospective observations the study team recommended adoption of AHA PREVENT as the primary pre-deployment risk-stratification tool for USAP candidates. The authors justified this choice by citing PREVENT’s contemporary derivation, inclusion of renal function, race-agnostic design, extension to heart-failure risk, lower age bound (from 30 years), and strong concordance with FRS. The source suggested targeted imaging—specifically coronary artery calcium testing—as a possible adjunct for intermediate-risk individuals, but it did not prescribe a specific algorithm, threshold, or timing for such imaging within the pre-deployment pathway.
Use of PREVENT was also recommended pragmatically because it was calculable for a larger share of the cohort than PCE, easing clinical implementation in a screened population with variable data completeness.
This analysis was retrospective and performed in a fitness-selected population referred for enhanced evaluation; selection bias therefore limits generalizability to broader military, civilian, or unscreened deployee groups. The source did not present prospective validation of any calculator against adjudicated hard endpoints beyond counts of evacuations. Detailed causes of the 21 unscreened evacuations were not enumerated in the report, and the authors did not supply a formal cost-effectiveness analysis for routine PREVENT use or for adding imaging such as coronary artery calcium scoring.
Regulatory or operational next steps were not specified in the source. The study did state that institutional review board approval was obtained (University of Texas Medical Branch, protocol number 25-0347), and that data supporting the findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request but are not publicly archived due to privacy protections. Remaining clinical questions documented by the authors include how to integrate coronary artery calcium testing into a practical pre-deployment algorithm, the optimal management pathway for discordant risk estimates, and whether PREVENT-based screening demonstrably reduces cardiac evacuations or hard cardiovascular endpoints in prospective implementation studies.