Why the study?
How do the Framingham risk score, WHO risk prediction charts, and ACC/AHA tools compare in estimating 10-year cardiovascular risk in a Northern Iranian population?
How do the Framingham risk score, WHO risk prediction charts, and ACC/AHA tools compare in estimating 10-year cardiovascular risk in a Northern Iranian population?
Different cardiovascular risk assessment tools yield substantially different estimates of 10-year CVD risk in the Northern Iranian population, highlighting the need for locally calibrated risk prediction models.
BACKGROUND: The present study was conducted to estimate 10-year cardiovascular disease events (CVD) risk using three instruments in northern Iran. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Baseline data of 3201 participants 40-79 of a population based cohort which was conducted in Northern Iran were analyzed. Framingham risk score (FRS), World Health Organization (WHO) risk prediction charts and American college of cardiovascular / American heart association (ACC/AHA) tool were applied to assess 10-year CVD events risk. The agreement values between the risk assessment instruments were determined using the kappa statistics. RESULTS: Our study estimated 53.5%of male population aged 40-79 had a 10 -year risk of CVD events≥10% based on ACC/AHA approach, 48.9% based on FRS and 11.8% based on WHO risk charts. A 10 -year risk≥10% was estimated among 20.1% of women using the ACC/AHA approach, 11.9%using FRS and 5.7%using WHO tool. ACC/AHA and Framingham tools had closest agreement in the estimation of 10-year risk≥10% (κ=0.7757) in meanwhile ACC/AHA and WHO approaches displayed highest agreement (κ=0.6123) in women. CONCLUSION: Different estimations of 10-year risk of CVD event were provided by ACC/AHA, FRS and WHO approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Motamed et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: