Key result
Number of fulfilled AHA health metrics correlates with cardiovascular risk scores among penitentiary staff.
Why the study?
Different methods of health status assessment in organized cohorts with low current cardiovascular risk, such as penitentiary employees, require comparison to identify the most significant measures.
Does the use of AHA health metrics provide a more comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular health compared to standard risk Scores in a low-risk organized cohort?
Cohort (n=1,014)
Does the use of AHA health metrics provide a more comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular health compared to standard risk Scores in a low-risk organized cohort?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AHA health metrics may be preferable to standard risk scores for preventive management in young, low-risk cohorts, as they identify poor health behaviors missed by traditional risk scoring.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare different methods of health status assessment in organized cohort of penitentiary employees in Saratov Region, Russian Federation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1,014 penitentiary employees (81.8% male) aged 33.4±6.8 years were included in the cohort study. All participants underwent an annual preventive health examination in the Center of Medical and Social Rehabilitation of Russian Federal Penitentiary Service in Saratov Region. The prevalence of common cardiovascular risk factors was assessed. Risk Score and the number of fulfilled health metrics proposed by American Heart Association (AHA) were calculated for each participant. RESULTS: It is shown that penitentiary staff in Saratov Region is characterized by low current risk score (1.2±0.8%), but high prevalence of such risk factors as increased body weight and obesity (51%), tobacco use or passive smoking (81%), and unhealthy diet (55%). 98.4% of participants had the Score level of ≤5%, but only 4.5% of penitentiary staff met the ideal cardiovascular health (they met all seven AHA health metrics). One fifth of the participants met three or less AHA health metrics. A statistically significant correlation between the risk Score and the number of fulfilled AHA health metrics is revealed (Chi-square = 5.1, p=0.024). The probability of fulfilment of less than 5 AHA health metrics in subjects with medium risk score is shown to be almost twofold greater than in subjects with low risk Score. However, there are a lot of differences in the assessment of cardiovascular health by risk Score and AHA health metrics. CONCLUSION: AHA health metrics are more preferable than the risk Score or assessment of separate cardiovascular risk factors for preventive management in organized cohorts with low current cardiovascular risk such as penitentiary staff in Saratov Region.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kiselev et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in Low cardiovascular risk (n=1,014). AHA health metrics and cardiovascular risk Score was evaluated on Correlation between the risk Score and the number of fulfilled AHA health metrics (Chi-square 5.1, p=0.024). The number of fulfilled AHA health metrics correlated with the cardiovascular risk Score in a cohort of penitentiary staff.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: