A Comparison of Four Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Instruments in Saudi Patients

Abstract

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.

Perbandingan Risiko Kardiovaskuler Menggunakan Metode Framingham, WHO Chart dan ASCVD Pada Pekerja PT. X Tahun 2021

“…Instrumen prediksi risiko ACC/AHA, efektif dalam mendeteksi risiko tinggi dan memprediksi penyakit kardiovaskuler aterosklerotik (ASCVD) serta miokard infark. Beberapa faktor risiko yang masuk skoring termasuk usia, jenis kelamin, etnis, kolesterol total, HDL, tekanan darah sistolik, obat antihipertensi, status diabetes, dan status merokok (5). Berdasarkan uji klinis hasil penelitian, menunjukkan bahwa koreksi terhadap faktor risiko yang dapat dimodifikasi dapat mengurangi kemungkinan terjadinya CVD (6).…”

Evaluation of cardiovascular diseases risk calculators for CVDs prevention and management: scoping review

“…There are online cardiovascular risk calculators to measure the probability of developing CVD without defining the appropriate population. Studies evaluate the CVD risk calculators that are clinically effective and cost-effective [ 21 ]. This review aims to summarise evidence on CVD risk calculators' key features, usability, and benefits using digital platforms for CVDs prevention and management.…”

Scoping review: Are CVDs risk calculators using the digital platform beneficial for CVDs prevention and management?

“…There are online cardiovascular risk calculators to measure the probability of developing CVD without de ning the appropriate population. Studies evaluate the CVD risk calculators that are clinically effective and cost-effective(23). The CVD risk calculators widely investigated in studies include FRS, SCORE, ACC/AHA (ASCVD) Risk Estimator, QRISK® and WHO/ISH risk prediction charts(24).…”

“…The typical evaluation method for CVD risk calculators comprises a sample of local patients without prior CVD and with a presence of acute MI. Then, individuals apply the different calculators to estimate the predicted 10year risk of CVD events if presented just before suffering the acute MI(23). QRISK® is the most accurate CVD risk calculator for several study populations.…”

“…A study conducted in Saudi Arabia states high-risk estimates for each calculator, including ACC/AHA (44.2%), Euro-SCORE (22.5%), FRS (29.5%), and QRISK® (95.3%). The QRISK® is the most accurate CVD risk assessment tool besides being most applicable for the Saudi population(23). Another study in India showed higher risks for the Joint British Societies (JBS), FRS and ACC/AHA instruments (55.9%, 38.3% and 30.2%, respectively) than the WHO/ISH risk scores (13.4%)(25).…”