Consecuencias clínicas de la utilización de las nuevas tablas de riesgo cardiovascular SCORE OP para pacientes mayores de 65 años

Performance of risk prediction scores for cardiovascular mortality in older persons: External validation of the SCORE OP and appraisal

BACKGROUND

European guidelines recommend the use of the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) to assess 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular events in people aged 40 to 65. The SCORE Older Persons (SCORE OP, 5-year and 10-year versions) was recently developed for people aged 65 or older. We assessed the performance of these risk scores in predicting fatal cardiovascular events in older persons in Berlin.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Data from the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), a prospective, population-based study of older persons recruited from a German public health insurance company database were used. 1,657 participants aged 70 or older without reported previous myocardial infarction were included. We assessed calibration by comparing predicted risks to observed (for 5-year versions, 5y) or projected (for 10-year versions) probabilities. During follow-up (median: 4.8 years), 118 cardiovascular deaths occurred. The calibration assessment of the SCORE OP-H 5y and SCORE OP-L 5y equations revealed 2.1- and 1.5-fold overestimation. Comparing 10-year versions, the SCORE OP showed better discrimination ability compared to the SCORE (C-indices of around 0.80 compared to 0.72) and the SCORE for high-risk regions showed the best calibration (chi-square = 29.68). The SCORE OP overestimated the true risk; 519 and 677 events were predicted using the low-risk and high-risk region SCORE OP equations compared to 397 to 399 events projected based on BIS follow-up data (predicted/actual ratios of 1.3 and 1.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the low transportability of the SCORE OP observed in our population, we caution against its use in routine clinical practice until further information is available to avoid possible overtreatment among older persons in Berlin.

Reclassification by applying the Framingham equation 30 years to subjects with intermediate cardiovascular risk. MARK study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The estimation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) with scores at 30 years old has a special interest in reclassifying in a suitable way <60 year subjects with intermediate CVR. This study analyzes what percentage of patients with intermediate CVR included in the MARK study is reclassified by applying the 30-year Framingham score (FS30). It also analyzes the degree of agreement between the two equations to classify high risk subjects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional study of 966 subjects included in the MARK study. The CVR was calculated with the two versions of the FS30 (based on lipids and body mass index) for "hard" cardiovascular events in subjects with intermediate CVR.

RESULTS

The 59% and 61% of the subjects with intermediate CVR would be classified as if they had high CVR to undergo a hard event if we used the FS30 in both versions. 70% of men and 35% of women would be classified as high CVR (p<0.01). The agreement percentage, measured with the Kappa index, between the equations FS30L and FS30BMI to classify the high-risk subjects was 67.9% (in men 67.4% and in women 68.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with intermediate CVR the FS30 reclassifies more than the half as high RCV, 2 out of 3 men and 1 out of 3 women.

Gender differences in cardiovascular risk assessment in elderly adults in Ecuador: evidence from a national survey

The present study aimed to predict the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) over a 5-year period and how it might vary by sex in an ethnically diverse population of older adults. We used a novel CVD risk model built and validated in older adults named the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation in Older Persons (SCORE OP). A population-based study analyzed a total of 1307 older adults. Analyses were done by various risk categories and sex. Of the study population, 54% were female with a mean age of 75±7.1 years. According to the SCORE OP model, individuals were classified as having low (9.8%), moderate (48.1%), and high or very high risk (42.1%) of CVD-related mortality. Individuals at higher risk of CVD were more likely to be male compared with females, 53.9% vs 31.8%, respectively (p<0.01). Males were more likely to be younger, living in rural areas, had higher levels of schooling, and with the exception of smoking status and serum triglycerides, had lower values of traditional risk factors than females. In addition, males were less likely to require blood pressure-lowering therapy and statin drugs than females. This gender inequality could be driven by sociocultural determinants and a risk factor paradox in which lower levels of the cardiovascular risk factors are associated with an increase rather than a reduction in mortality. These data can be used to tailor primary prevention strategies such as lifestyle counseling and therapeutic measures in order to improve male elderly health, especially in low-resource settings.

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.