Comparison of Two Different Methods for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment: Framingham Risk Score and Score System

Open access

Comparison of Two Different Methods for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment: Framingham Risk Score and Score System

Numerous studies have shown that the major risk factors for coronary heart disease (cigarette smoking, hypertension, elevated serum total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol - LDL, low serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol - HDL, diabetes mellitus and advancing age), are additive in predictive power. Accordingly, the total risk of a person can be estimated by summing up the risk imparted by each of the major risk factors. Using data obtained from population studies, various risk assessment algorithms have been developed. The aim of this study was to compare the two most common risk scores. Risk assessment for determining 10-year risk in 185 healthy, asymptomatic individuals of both sexes, 30-85 years old, was carried out according to both Framingham (FRS) and SCORE risk scoring. The risk factors included in the calculation of 10-year risk are gender, age, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, treatment for hypertension and cigarette smoking. The determinations of total cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol were made in sera collected after a 12h fasting period using an Olympus AU2700 automated analyzer. The Framingham risk score was determined using an electronic calculator - ATP III Risk Estimator, and the risk status according to SCORE was obtained using charts for the 10-year risk in populations at high risk. Among 185 participants, in 152 (82%) 10-year risk for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) death was <10%, 24 (13%) had intermediate and 9 (5%) had high risk (⩾20%) according to FRS. According to SCORE, 110 (60%) participants had <1%, 56 (30%) had 1-5% and 19 (10%) had ⩾5% of 10-year risk for cardiovascular death. Different categories of risk were assigned to ~30% of individuals according to different risk assessment models. Differences in risk classification when using two different risk assessment algorithms can be explained with several important issues, including different endpoints, consideration of interactions and incorporation of antihypertensive use. It is important to note that neither FRS nor SCORE have been appropriately adjusted for our population, according to the national cardiovascular mortality rate.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Smith SC Milani RV Arnett DK Crouse JR III McGrae-McDermott M Ridker PM et al. Atherosclerotic vascular disease conference. Writing group II: Risk factors. Circulation. 2004; 109: 2613-16.

  • Khot UN Khot MB Bajzer CT Sapp SK Ohman EM Brener SJ et al. Prevalence of conventional risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease. JAMA. 2003; 290: 898-904.

  • Greenland P Smith SC Grundy SC. Improving coronary heart disease risk assessment in asymptomatic people: Role of traditional risk factors and noninvasive cardiovascular tests. Circulation. 2001; 104: 1863-7.

  • Wilson PWF D'Agostino RB Levy D Belanger AM Silbershatz H Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998; 97: 1837-47.

  • Wood D De Backer G Faergeman O Graham I Mancia G Pyorala K et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice: Recommendations of the Third Joint Task Force of European and other societies on coronary prevention. Atherosclerosis. 1998; 140: 199-270.

  • Greenland P Grundy SM Pasternak RC Lenfant C. Problems on the pathway from risk assessment to risk reduction. Circulation. 1998; 97: 1761-2.

  • Grundy SM Pasternak RC Greenland P Smith S Fuster V. Assessment of cardiovascular risk by use of multiple risk factor assessment equation. A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology. Circulation; 1999: 1481-92.

  • Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection evaluation and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA; 285: 2486-97.

  • De Backer G Ambrosioni E Borch-Johnsen K Brontos C Cifkova R Dallongeville J et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Third Joint Task Force of European and other societies in cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Executive Summary. Eur Heart J. 2003; 24: 1601-10.

  • Conroy RM Pyorala K Fitzgerald AP Sans S Menotti A De Backer G et al. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J. 2003; 24: 987-1003.

  • National Cholesterol Education Program. Risk assessment tool for estimating 10-year risk of developing hard CHD (myocardial infarction and coronary death). http://hin.nhlb.nih.gov/atpiii/calculator.asp?usertype=prof

  • Topol EJ Lauer MS. The rudimentary phase of personalised medicine: coronary risk scores. Lancet. 2003; 362: 1776-7.

  • D'Agostino RB Grundy SM Sullivan LM Wilson P. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic group investigation. JAMA. 2001; 286: 180-7.

  • Zamaklar M. Konsenzus konferencija o promeni referentnih vrednosti lipida i ciljnim vrednostima lečenja lipidskih poremećaja. Jugoslov Med Biohem. 2005; 24: 299-300.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 2.000
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.075

CiteScore 2018: 1.47

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.523
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.581

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 197 96 1
PDF Downloads 81 48 1