relationship between different cardiovascular risk scores and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis in an indian population

Clicks: 698
ID: 152494
2015
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #1 of 437 articles by views in renewable energy

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 437 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background: Relative accuracy of the various currently available cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment algorithms in Indian patients is not known. Methods: This study included 194 consecutive patients (mean age 49.6 ± 10.3 years, 84.5% males) attending a CV disease prevention clinic at a tertiary center in north India. Four risk assessment models [Framingham Risk score (RiskFRS), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled cohort equations (RiskACC/AHA), the 3rd iteration of Joint British Societies' risk calculator (RiskJBS) and the World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension risk prediction charts (RiskWHO)] were applied. The estimated risk scores were correlated with carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and coronary calcium score (CCS) using nonparametric statistics (Chi-square test, Kruskal–Wallis test and Spearman rank correlation). Results: Overall, RiskACC/AHA and RiskWHO significantly underestimated CV risk as compared to RiskJBS and RiskFRS, with RiskJBS being the least likely to underestimate the risk (patients with coronary artery disease who were found to have ≥20% CV risk- 21.4% with RiskACC/AHA, 17.9% with RiskWHO, 41.4% with RiskFRS, and 58.6% with RiskJBS). Further, only RiskJBS and RiskFRS, but not RiskACC/AHA and RiskWHO, demonstrated consistent relationship with CIMT and CCS (Spearman rho 0.45 and 0.46 for RiskJBS and 0.39 and 0.36 for RiskFRS for CIMT and CCS respectively, all p values < 0.001). Conclusions: The present study shows that in Indian subjects RiskJBS appears to provide the most accurate estimation of CV risk. It least underestimates the risk and has the best correlation with CIMT and CCS. However, large-scale prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Reference Key
bansal2015indianrelationship Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Manish Bansal;Ravi R. Kasliwal;Naresh Trehan
Journal renewable energy
Year 2015
DOI
10.1016/j.ihj.2015.04.017
URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019483215001054
Keywords
atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease primary prevention risk stratificationsurgerydiseases of the circulatory (cardiovascular) system

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.