Cargando…

Agreement between cardiovascular disease risk assessment tools: An application to the United Arab Emirates population

INTRODUCTION: Evidence regarding the performance of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment tools is limited in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Therefore, we assessed the agreement between various externally validated CVD risk assessment tools in the UAE. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Ab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oulhaj, Abderrahim, Bakir, Sherif, Aziz, Faisal, Suliman, Abubaker, Almahmeed, Wael, Sourij, Harald, Shehab, Abdulla
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6980489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31978187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228031
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Evidence regarding the performance of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment tools is limited in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Therefore, we assessed the agreement between various externally validated CVD risk assessment tools in the UAE. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Abu Dhabi Screening Program for Cardiovascular Risk Markers (AD-SALAMA) data, a large population-based cross-sectional survey conducted in Abu Dhabi, UAE during the period 2009 until 2015, was performed in July 2019. The analysis included 2,621 participants without type 2 Diabetes and without history of cardiovascular diseases. The CVD risk assessment tools included in the analysis were the World Health Organization for Middle East and North Africa Region (WHO-MENA), the systematic coronary risk evaluation for high risk countries (SCORE-H), the pooled cohort risk equations for white (PCRE-W) and African Americans (PCRE-AA), the national cholesterol education program Framingham risk score (FRAM-ATP), and the laboratory Framingham risk score (FRAM-LAB). RESULTS: The overall concordance coefficient was 0.50. The agreement between SCORE-H and PCRE-W, PCRE-AA, FRAM-LAB, FRAM-ATP and WHO-MENA, were 0.47, 0.39, 0.0.25, 0.42 and 0.18, respectively. PCRE-AA classified the highest proportion of participants into high-risk category of CVD (16.4%), followed by PCRE-W (13.6%), FRAM-LAB (6.9%), SCORE-H (4.5%), FRAM-ATP (2.7%), and WHO-MENA (0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: We found a poor agreement between various externally validated CVD risk assessment tools when applied to a large data collected in the UAE. This poses a challenge to choose any of these tools for clinical decision-making regarding the primary prevention of CVD in the country.