Key result
SCORE-2 categorizes ~35% at high risk, showing poor concordance with ASCVD and HEARTS.
Cross-Sectional (n=868)
Yes
SCORE-2 classifies a significantly higher proportion of Colombian adults at risk of type 2 diabetes as high cardiovascular risk compared to ASCVD and HEARTS, demonstrating low agreement and a need for local validation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Discordant classifications among scores warrant caution in Colombian adults; leaves open need for local validation studies.
Background The Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator (ASCVD), Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE-2), and HEARTS risk scales are commonly used to estimate cardiovascular risk (CVR); however, their applicability may vary depending on the population context. Objective This study aims to evaluate stratification, concordance, and associated clinical and social factors across three CVR scales in Colombian adults at risk of type 2 diabetes. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among 868 adults. CVR was categorized as low, moderate, or high based on ASCVD, SCORE-2, and HEARTS criteria. Descriptive statistics were used for categorical variables, and comparisons were made using chi-square tests. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Concordance between scales was assessed using weighted Cohen's kappa (wκ), and ordinal logistic regression was applied to identify factors associated with CVR. Results SCORE-2 classified 34.9% of participants as high cardiovascular risk, compared with 3.6% by ASCVD and 4.7% by HEARTS. Moderate agreement was observed between ASCVD and HEARTS (wκ = 0.49; p < 0.001). Living in Bogotá was associated with higher CVR according to ASCVD (OR 1.71; 95% CI: 1.28–2.30) and SCORE-2 (OR 1.74; 95% CI: 1.29–2.33). Higher education was protective in ASCVD and SCORE-2. Impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes were associated with increased CVR across all scales ( p < 0.05). Conclusion SCORE-2 classified a higher proportion of individuals as high cardiovascular risk, while ASCVD and HEARTS were more conservative. The low level of agreement between the scales highlights the need for local validation of CVR assessment tools.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arrieta et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in At risk of type 2 diabetes (n=868). Cardiovascular risk scales (ASCVD, SCORE-2, HEARTS) was evaluated on Concordance between ASCVD and HEARTS risk scales (wκ = 0.49, 95% CI 0.44-0.54, p=<0.001). SCORE-2 classified 34.9% of participants as high cardiovascular risk compared to 3.6% by ASCVD and 4.7% by HEARTS, demonstrating low overall agreement between the scales and highlighting the need for local validation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: