Why the study?
Does the CARRISMA software tool improve cardiovascular risk stratification in primary prevention compared to standard risk scores?
Does the CARRISMA software tool improve cardiovascular risk stratification in primary prevention compared to standard risk scores?
CARRISMA is a user-friendly tool that refines cardiovascular risk stratification in primary prevention by quantitatively incorporating BMI, physical activity, and smoking intensity.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May refine primary prevention risk discussions; leaves open whether CARRISMA improves stratification over SCORE.
AIMS: Risk stratification is important for decisions about the intensity of treatment in primary prevention. Risk factors and lifestyle factors are responsible for over 80% of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, body mass index (BMI), physical activity and smoking (cigarettes/day) are not or not quantitatively represented in the risk stratification system. METHODS AND RESULTS: CARdiovascular RISk MAnagement (CARRISMA) is a software program considering the prognostic impact of BMI, physical activity and cigarettes per day adjusted for age and sex based on multivariate regression analyses from the literature on top of one of the three major scores to improve risk stratification. The 10-year European Society of Cardiology Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) cardiovascular mortality risk for an intermediate risk region, e.g. increases from 3 to 6% by considering smoking of 30 cigarettes per day instead of just 'smoking' and by taking into account a BMI of 34. Whereas the 10-year ESC cardiovascular mortality risk of a 55-year-old active individual decreases from 5 to 3%, by considering a physical activity equivalent of 2100 kcal/week, the Framingham or PROspective CArdiovascular Münster (PROCAM) risks change accordingly. CONCLUSION: CARRISMA facilitates the application of knowledge of the current literature in the individual patient in a user-friendly manner allowing a more detailed and yet time-efficient risk stratification and risk management in primary prevention, particularly in the intermediate risk range.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gohlke et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: