Global Cardiovascular Risk Assessment: Strengths and Limitations
- 193 Downloads
Global cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment tries to answer the questions: who will benefit from intervention? And when should non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment be started? Used for the assessment of CV risk in the presence of one main CV risk factor, the presence of previous CV disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease and severely elevated single risk factors, are situations with a high or very high risk. For the majority of subjects without any of the above, a calculation of risk can help to decide the best management. The methodology of assessing global CV risk has both strength and limitations. Several computational methods have been developed to assess global CV risk but no risk estimation can consider all the potential risk factors. The most used score chart is the Framingham CardioVascular Risk Score, although in Europe the Systematic Coronary risk evaluation is widespread. The strengths of the global CV risk scores depend on the methodology applied at the time of construction: (a) appropriate statistical methods (representative sample, sufficient power, clear definition of the outcomes); (b) inclusion of appropriate risk factors (age, sex, conventional risk factors, and inclusion of others that can be relevant). Once developed, the function requires internal and external validity as well as calibration. There are several limitations, which have been solved with different approaches. In the case of hypertension, one element is introduced in the score charts, the presence of hypertension-induced organ damage offering a refinement of the approach to the global CV risk.
KeywordsGlobal cardiovascular risk Hypertension Framingham score SCORE
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The author declares that he has no conflict of interest. The paper did not receive any funding.
- 3.Conroy RM, Pyorala K, Fitzgerald AP, Sans S, Menotti A, De Backer G, De Bacquer D, Ducimetiere P, Jousilahti P, Keil U, Njolstad I, Oganov RG, Thomsen T, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Tverdal A, Wedel H, Whincup P, Wilhelmsen L, Graham IM, Group Sp. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:987–1003.Google Scholar
- 4.Woodward M, Brindle P, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Estimation Sgor. Adding social deprivation and family history to cardiovascular risk assessment: the ASSIGN score from the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (SHHEC). Heart. 2007;93:172–176.Google Scholar
- 9.Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, Coady S, D’Agostino RB Sr, Gibbons R, American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, et al. ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;2014(63):2935–59.Google Scholar
- 10.Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, Graham I, Reiner Z, Verschuren M, et al. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1635–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redón J, Zanchetti A, Böhm M, Christiaens T, Cifkova R, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Galderisi M, Grobbee DE, Jaarsma T, Kirchhof P, Kjeldsen SE, Laurent S, Manolis AJ, Nilsson PM, Ruilope LM, Schmieder RE, Sirnes PA, Sleight P, Viigimaa M, Waeber B, Zannad F, Members Task Force. ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens. 2013;2013(31):1281–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar