Why the study?
To compare the performance of the Framingham Risk Score versus Pooled Cohort Equations in predicting coronary atherosclerosis among moderate to high-risk patients meeting Korean dyslipidemia guideline target LDL-C levels.
Does the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) or Framingham Risk Score (FRS) better predict coronary atherosclerosis in moderate to high-risk Korean patients meeting target LDL-C levels?
Observational (n=500)
No
Does the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) or Framingham Risk Score (FRS) better predict coronary atherosclerosis in moderate to high-risk Korean patients meeting target LDL-C levels?
PCE may be preferred over FRS for moderate-risk patients; challenges both scores' utility and leaves open need for better stratification in high-risk diabetics.
This study aims to compare the predicting performance of coronary atherosclerosis between Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) in moderate to high-risk patients who meet the target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of Korean dyslipidemia guidelines. Among 1207 patients aged 40 to 65 who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography at outpatient for chest discomfort, we included 414 moderate-risk patients (non-diabetes) and 86 high-risk patients (diabetes). They were divided into 3 groups according to FRS and PCE, then compared with coronary artery calcification score (CACS) and plaque burden degree strata. We presented receiver operating characteristic curves for the presence of coronary artery calcification (CAC) and any plaque. In moderate-risk patients, the distribution of CACS and plaque burden degree according to FRS and PCE risk strata showed significant differences between groups and a consistent trend (P < .001). Both FRS and PCE showed good discrimination for the presence of CAC [area under the curve (AUC); 0.711 vs 0.75, P = .02] and any plaque (AUC; 0.72 vs 0.756, P = .025). However, in high-risk patients, there was no significant differences or consistent trend between groups and the AUC values of FRS and PCE were (0.537 vs 0.571, P = .809) for CAC and (0.478 vs 0.65 P = .273) for any plaque showing poor discrimination. In predicting coronary atherosclerosis in moderate to high-risk patients who meet the target LDL-C level of Korean dyslipidemia guidelines, both FRS and PCE can be used in moderate-risk patients but not in high-risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Coronary atherosclerosis in dyslipidemia (n=500). Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) vs. Framingham Risk Score (FRS) was evaluated on Discrimination (AUC) for the presence of coronary artery calcification in moderate-risk patients (p=0.02). In moderate-risk patients meeting target LDL-C levels, the Pooled Cohort Equations demonstrated better discrimination for coronary artery calcification than the Framingham Risk Score (AUC 0.75 vs 0.711, p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More on Coronary artery diseaseMore from Medicine