Key result
ACC/AHA score identifies elevated CV risk in ~52% of MI patients, outperforming FRS, WHO/ISH, and SCORE.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease is a global burden in developing countries requiring periodic monitoring, and comparison of CVD risk tools between East Mediterranean and South Asian populations is needed.
Which cardiovascular risk assessment tool best identifies CVD risk in East Mediterranean and South Asian populations?
Observational (n=139)
No
Which cardiovascular risk assessment tool best identifies CVD risk in East Mediterranean and South Asian populations?
p-value: p=0.0000
The ACC/AHA ASCVD risk estimator is recommended for identifying CVD risk in the East Mediterranean population, while a population-specific tool is needed for South Asians.
ACC/AHA estimator may better identify high-risk East Mediterranean patients; leaves open prospective validation before wider adoption.
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a global burden particularly in developing countries necessitates the periodical monitoring for these vulnerable population. This study aimed to compare four tools to measure the CVD risk between the East Mediterranean and South Asian population. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 139 patients from East Mediterranean (n=90) and South Asians (n=49) ethnicity who were admitted during the one-year period in a multi-specialty tertiary care hospital located in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. Four different tools currently in use across the world were used to analyses the CVD risk. RESULTS: Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) from American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) was found to be significant (P=0.0000) than World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) and Framingham Risk Score (FRS) European SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) memo card from European Society of Cardiology risk prediction charts. Meanwhile, FRS looks equally good as it detects 44.89% of South Asian study population with >10% CVD risk while ACC/AHA detects 46.93%. CONCLUSION: The present study recommends ACC/AHA cardiac risk estimator to identify the CVD risk in East Mediterranean population. However, the South Asian population needed a population-based tool to assess the accurate CVD risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alenazi et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Myocardial infarction (n=139). ACC/AHA ASCVD risk score vs. FRS, SCORE, and WHO/ISH risk scores was evaluated on Detection of >10% 10-year cardiovascular disease risk (p=0.0000). The ACC/AHA cardiac risk score identified >10% cardiovascular risk in 51.79% of patients with myocardial infarction, performing significantly better than FRS, WHO/ISH, and SCORE tools (P=0.0000).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: