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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |