Comparison of cardiovascular risk assessment tools and their guidelines in evaluation of 10-year CVD risk and preventive recommendations: A population based study

Abstract

Background: Identification of individuals at risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) results in better clinical outcomes and may help policy makers in conscious decision making for community based and national intervention strategies. The main aim of this study was to compare various CVD risk assessment tools and their related guidelines in estimation of 10-year CVD risk and subsequent therapeutic recommendations, respectively.

Methods: Data of 3086 subjects aged 40-74years from a cohort study of northern Iran were utilized in this cross-sectional study. The risks were calculated based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) tool, two versions of Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) equations (for low and high risk European countries) and Framingham approach. We also detected participants who ought to be recommended for treatment based on the specific guidelines related to each of the risk assessment tools.

Results: Mean cardiovascular risks were 12.96%, 8.84%, 1.90% and 3.45% in men and 5.87%, 2.13%, 0.8% and 1.13% in women based on ACC/AHA, Framingham, SCORE equation for low-risk European countries and high-risk European countries, respectively. Based on ACC/AHA, Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines related to SCORE equations for low and high risk European countries 58.2%, 27.1%, 21.1% and 28.6% of men and 39.7%, 33.0%, 29.5% and 30.7% of women were recommended to statin therapy, respectively.

Conclusions: In conclusion, more individuals were recommended for treatment by ACC/AHA guideline than the other guidelines.

Keywords: 10-Year cardiovascular risk; ACC/AHA guidelines; Cardiovascular diseases; Cardiovascular risk assessment tools; Framingham guidelines; SCORE risk charts.