The SMART-risk score predicted cardiovascular events in patients with overt atherosclerosis with an AUC of 0.67 and a relative risk of 1.15 per additional point (95% CI 1.01-1.30; p=0.03).
Observational (n=96)
Do PROCAM, FRAMINGHAM, SCORE, and SMART risk scores predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with overt atherosclerosis?
The SMART risk score is a significant predictor of cardiovascular events in patients with overt atherosclerosis, outperforming PROCAM, FRAMINGHAM, and SCORE which appear barely useful in this secondary prevention setting.
Relative Risk: 1.15 (95% CI 1.01–1.3)
p-value: p=0.03
BACKGROUND: The predictive value of PROCAM, FRAMINGHAM, SCORE and SMART-score to estimate the cardiovascular risk in patients with overt atherosclerosis had never been assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 96 consecutive patients with clinically evident atherosclerosis (coronary, cerebrovascular, peripheral artery and renovascular disease) were enrolled in this preliminary observational study. At baseline, medical history and blood chemistry were obtained. Sonographic measurement of the intima-media thickness (IMT) in the common carotid artery was performed and risk estimations according to the above listed risk scores were calculated. During a 6 year follow-up the occurrence of cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome and stroke was assessed. RESULTS: Mean (±SD) risk-scores were 10.9±2.5, range 6-17 (SMART); 18.9±18.2%; range 0.2-94.1% (PROCAM); 21.4±13.1%, range 4-56% (FRAMINGHAM); and 4.8±3.9%, range 0.4-15.3% (SCORE). Mean IMT was 0.84±0.14 mm, range 0.51-1.20 mm. All scores correlate significantly with each other (r>0.321; p<0.01), but only SMART-score correlated significantly with baseline IMT(r=0.372; p<0.001). Within the median follow-up of 73 months, a cardiovascular endpoint was observed in 36 (42%) patients. The AUC (95% confidence interval) for SMART-risk-score predicting a cardiovascular event was 0.67 (0.54-0.77; p<0.02); for PROCAM 0.60 (0.47-0.73; p=n.s.); for FRAMINGHAM 0.56 (0.43-0.69; p=n.s.); and for SCORE 0.60 (0.46-0.73; p=n.s.). Cox regression analysis showed a relative risk for a cardiovascular event per additional SMART score point of 1.15 (95% CI 1.01-1.30 p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: PROCAM-, FRAMINGHAM- and SCORE-risk score seem to be barely useful in a secondary prevention setting. In patients with overt atherosclerosis, the cardiovascular risk seems to be better assessed by means of the SMART score.
Uthoff et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in Overt atherosclerosis (n=96). SMART-risk score vs. PROCAM, FRAMINGHAM, and SCORE risk scores was evaluated on Cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome and stroke (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.30, p=0.03). The SMART-risk score predicted cardiovascular events in patients with overt atherosclerosis with an AUC of 0.67 and a relative risk of 1.15 per additional point (95% CI 1.01-1.30; p=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: