Cargando…
Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2
OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular risk estimation is an essential step to reduce the onset of adverse cardiovascular events. For this purpose, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk chart method was used in Europe. In 2021, the SCORE2 algorithm was released, bringing changes in the calculation...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710472/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36442905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2022-002087 |
_version_ | 1784841373896146944 |
---|---|
author | Csenteri, Orsolya Jancsó, Zoltán Szöllösi, Gergő József Andréka, Péter Vajer, Péter |
author_facet | Csenteri, Orsolya Jancsó, Zoltán Szöllösi, Gergő József Andréka, Péter Vajer, Péter |
author_sort | Csenteri, Orsolya |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular risk estimation is an essential step to reduce the onset of adverse cardiovascular events. For this purpose, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk chart method was used in Europe. In 2021, the SCORE2 algorithm was released, bringing changes in the calculation methodology. This study assessed and compared the level of cardiovascular risk in a population aged 40–65 years using the SCORE and SCORE2 methodologies. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a total of 85 802 patients in Hungary. Cardiovascular risk levels were determined using the SCORE and SCORE2 risk estimation methods. RESULTS: Using SCORE, 97.7% of men aged 40–50 years were classified as low–moderate risk, which decreased to 32.4% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 100% of women aged 40–50 years were classified as low–moderate risk, compared with 75.6% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 36.8% of men aged 50–65 years were classified as high risk and 14.8% as very high risk, and 5.4% of women aged 50–65 years were classified as high risk and 0.5% as very high risk. In this age group, using SCORE2, 50% of men were classified as high risk and 25.8% as very high risk, and 38.8% of women were classified as high risk and 11.9% as very high risk. CONCLUSIONS: When the SCORE2 method was used instead of SCORE 43.91% of the whole population were classified with a higher level of risk, which represents a radical increase in the number of patients with high or very high cardiovascular risk. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9710472 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97104722022-12-01 Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 Csenteri, Orsolya Jancsó, Zoltán Szöllösi, Gergő József Andréka, Péter Vajer, Péter Open Heart Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular risk estimation is an essential step to reduce the onset of adverse cardiovascular events. For this purpose, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk chart method was used in Europe. In 2021, the SCORE2 algorithm was released, bringing changes in the calculation methodology. This study assessed and compared the level of cardiovascular risk in a population aged 40–65 years using the SCORE and SCORE2 methodologies. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a total of 85 802 patients in Hungary. Cardiovascular risk levels were determined using the SCORE and SCORE2 risk estimation methods. RESULTS: Using SCORE, 97.7% of men aged 40–50 years were classified as low–moderate risk, which decreased to 32.4% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 100% of women aged 40–50 years were classified as low–moderate risk, compared with 75.6% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 36.8% of men aged 50–65 years were classified as high risk and 14.8% as very high risk, and 5.4% of women aged 50–65 years were classified as high risk and 0.5% as very high risk. In this age group, using SCORE2, 50% of men were classified as high risk and 25.8% as very high risk, and 38.8% of women were classified as high risk and 11.9% as very high risk. CONCLUSIONS: When the SCORE2 method was used instead of SCORE 43.91% of the whole population were classified with a higher level of risk, which represents a radical increase in the number of patients with high or very high cardiovascular risk. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9710472/ /pubmed/36442905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2022-002087 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention Csenteri, Orsolya Jancsó, Zoltán Szöllösi, Gergő József Andréka, Péter Vajer, Péter Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
title | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
title_full | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
title_fullStr | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
title_short | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
title_sort | differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using score and score2 |
topic | Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710472/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36442905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2022-002087 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT csenteriorsolya differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 AT jancsozoltan differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 AT szollosigergojozsef differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 AT andrekapeter differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 AT vajerpeter differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 |