Cargando…

A Comparison of Four Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Instruments in Saudi Patients

Introduction Several cardiovascular risk calculators are available online to measure the probability of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) without defining the appropriate population. In the current study, four risk assessment instruments were investigated with Saudi Arabian patients with CVD t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hasabullah, Manar, Kahtani, Fatamah, Balkhoyor, Tasneem, Al-Harbi, Lama, Kinsara, Abdulhalim J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32226694
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7093
_version_ 1783510747216609280
author Hasabullah, Manar
Kahtani, Fatamah
Balkhoyor, Tasneem
Al-Harbi, Lama
Kinsara, Abdulhalim J
author_facet Hasabullah, Manar
Kahtani, Fatamah
Balkhoyor, Tasneem
Al-Harbi, Lama
Kinsara, Abdulhalim J
author_sort Hasabullah, Manar
collection PubMed
description Introduction Several cardiovascular risk calculators are available online to measure the probability of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) without defining the appropriate population. In the current study, four risk assessment instruments were investigated with Saudi Arabian patients with CVD to identify the instrument with the best predictability. The chosen instruments were the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator, and the United Kingdom score which is called QRISK(®). Methods Saudi patients, 40 years and older, with acute coronary syndrome, were recruited. Data related to age, gender, ethnicity, height, weight, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), smoking status, diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, heart attack in a first-degree relative, and use of antihypertensive treatment were recorded. Results Out of 129 patients, the ACC/AHA had higher predictability with low risk (26.3%) and high risk (66.7%) groups. The QRISK(®) was highly applicable (95.3%); however, the SCORE was not considered applicable (22.5%). Conclusion The QRISK(®) is easy to implement and applicable in a population-based study, but the ACC/AHA is superior in predicting individuals with a high risk of CVD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7096078
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70960782020-03-28 A Comparison of Four Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Instruments in Saudi Patients Hasabullah, Manar Kahtani, Fatamah Balkhoyor, Tasneem Al-Harbi, Lama Kinsara, Abdulhalim J Cureus Cardiology Introduction Several cardiovascular risk calculators are available online to measure the probability of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) without defining the appropriate population. In the current study, four risk assessment instruments were investigated with Saudi Arabian patients with CVD to identify the instrument with the best predictability. The chosen instruments were the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator, and the United Kingdom score which is called QRISK(®). Methods Saudi patients, 40 years and older, with acute coronary syndrome, were recruited. Data related to age, gender, ethnicity, height, weight, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), smoking status, diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, heart attack in a first-degree relative, and use of antihypertensive treatment were recorded. Results Out of 129 patients, the ACC/AHA had higher predictability with low risk (26.3%) and high risk (66.7%) groups. The QRISK(®) was highly applicable (95.3%); however, the SCORE was not considered applicable (22.5%). Conclusion The QRISK(®) is easy to implement and applicable in a population-based study, but the ACC/AHA is superior in predicting individuals with a high risk of CVD. Cureus 2020-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7096078/ /pubmed/32226694 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7093 Text en Copyright © 2020, Hasabullah et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Cardiology
Hasabullah, Manar
Kahtani, Fatamah
Balkhoyor, Tasneem
Al-Harbi, Lama
Kinsara, Abdulhalim J
A Comparison of Four Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Instruments in Saudi Patients
title A Comparison of Four Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Instruments in Saudi Patients
title_full A Comparison of Four Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Instruments in Saudi Patients
title_fullStr A Comparison of Four Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Instruments in Saudi Patients
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Four Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Instruments in Saudi Patients
title_short A Comparison of Four Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Instruments in Saudi Patients
title_sort comparison of four cardiovascular risk assessment instruments in saudi patients
topic Cardiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32226694
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7093
work_keys_str_mv AT hasabullahmanar acomparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients
AT kahtanifatamah acomparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients
AT balkhoyortasneem acomparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients
AT alharbilama acomparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients
AT kinsaraabdulhalimj acomparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients
AT hasabullahmanar comparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients
AT kahtanifatamah comparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients
AT balkhoyortasneem comparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients
AT alharbilama comparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients
AT kinsaraabdulhalimj comparisonoffourcardiovascularriskassessmentinstrumentsinsaudipatients