Why the study?
Primary aldosteronism carries higher cardiovascular risk than essential hypertension, but whether standard CVD risk calculators recognize this increased risk was unknown.
Do standard cardiovascular risk calculators reflect the increased risk of CVD in patients with primary aldosteronism compared to essential hypertension?
Do standard cardiovascular risk calculators reflect the increased risk of CVD in patients with primary aldosteronism compared to essential hypertension?
Standard cardiovascular risk calculators fail to reflect the known increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with primary aldosteronism compared to essential hypertension, likely underestimating their true risk.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Standard calculators may underestimate CVD risk in primary aldosteronism; leaves open whether PA-specific models are needed.
OBJECTIVES: Primary aldosteronism (PA), the most common endocrine cause of hypertension, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) than blood pressure (BP)-matched essential hypertension (EH). We aimed to compare the calculated risks of CVD in patients who had hypertension with PA or EH using CVD risk calculators, hypothesising that they will fail to recognise the increased CVD risk in PA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: An endocrine hypertension service in Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who had hypertension without CVD referred for the investigation of hypertension. OUTCOME MEASURES: Calculated 5-year or 10-year CVD risk as predicted by the National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance (NVDPA) algorithm, Framingham Risk Score, Pooled Cohort Equations and QRISK3. RESULTS: Those with PA (n=128) and EH (n=133), did not differ significantly in their calculated CVD risks with the NVDPA algorithm (moderate-to-high 5-year risk 36/100 vs 45/99, p=0.17); the Framingham Risk Score (median 10-year risk 7.72% (4.43%-12.95%) vs 6.84% (3.85%-10.50%), p=0.14); the Pooled Cohort Equations (median 10-year risk 9.45% (4.36%-15.37%) vs 7.90% (2.09%-14.73%), p=0.07); and QRISK3 (median 10-year risk 11.31% (7.22%-20.29%) vs 12.47% (5.10%-19.93%), p=0.51). Similarities persisted on regression analyses accounting for systolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: CVD risk algorithms do not reflect the increased risk of CVD in patients with PA, and likely underestimate the true risk of CVD among those with PA. Screening for PA, in addition to using the CVD risk algorithm in patients who had hypertension, may facilitate the targeted treatment of PA and minimisation of cardiovascular risk in affected individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Solanki et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: