Why the study?
Does a higher composite CVD Risk Index (CVDRI) correlate with an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease in community residents?
Does a higher composite CVD Risk Index (CVDRI) correlate with an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease in community residents?
A simple composite risk index based on telehealth data strongly correlates with cardiovascular disease prevalence, highlighting its potential for community-based risk stratification and targeted nursing interventions.
Higher CVDRI associated with greater CVD prevalence; hypothesis-generating for community risk stratification pending prospective validation.
Assessing a combination of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-risk factors may be a practical tool for risk assessment and for finding the high-risk group among local community members. This study examines the association between the number of CVD-risk factors, regardless of any specific combination with the CVD ambit, using data from 1,570 residents in Tsing Yi community (Hong Kong) who registered with the Telehealth System. A quantitative composite CVD Risk Index (CVDRI) with scores ranging from 0 to 6 included rankings for high systolic and diastolic blood pressure, presence of diabetes, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and age. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios for the prevalence of CVD. Those with a CVDRI of 1, 2, or 3 and above were 1.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.34-3.99], 5.3 (95% CI = 3.60-7.90), and 10 times (95% CI = 6.41-15.50) more likely to have CVD, respectively, than those with a risk index of 0. Among the CVDRI components, high blood pressure had the greatest influence on CVD risk, followed by presence of diabetes and high BMI. In conclusion, a CVDRI based on existing health data from a Telehealth System was developed and used to identify local community members at risk of CVD. Nurse intervention may achieve greater reduction of CVD morbidity and mortality if multiple risk factors for the high-risk group are addressed at the same time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yip et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: