Annals Internal Medicine, Author Interviews, Heart Disease / 25.02.2015
Study Assesses Accuracy of Multiple Cardiovascular Risk Scores
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Andrew Paul DeFilippis, MD, MSc
Assistant Professor of Medicine University of Louisville
Director, Cardiovascular Disease Prevention
Medical Director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Medicine Johns Hopkins
University of Louisville Jewish Hospital Rudd Heart & Lung Center
Louisville, KY
Michael Joseph Blaha, MD MPH
Director of Clinical Research
Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease
Assistant Professor of Medicine
John Hopkins
MedicalResearch: What is the background for this study?
Response: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. While multiple therapies are available to prevent this common disease, accurate risk assessment is essential to effectively balance the risks and benefits of therapy in primary prevention. For more than a decade, national guidelines have recommended the use of an objective risk assessment tool based on the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) to guide therapy in primary prevention. Recently, the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) developed a new risk score to guide cardiovascular risk-reducing therapy.
We had two main objectives in our study:
1) To compare the performance of the new AHA-ACC risk score with four other commonly used risk scores in a MODERN DAY gender balanced multi-ethnic population.
2) To explore how the use of modern day preventive therapy (aspirin, statins, BP meds and revascularization) impact the performance of the AHA-ACC score.
MedicalResearch: What are the main findings?
Response: We found that the new AHA-ACC atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score and three Framingham-based risk scores, all derived from cohorts’ decade’s old, overestimated cardiovascular events by 25 – 115%, while the Reynolds Risk score, derived from more modern cohorts, accurately predicted the overall event rate in a modern, multi-ethnic cohort free of baseline clinical cardiovascular disease. Overestimation was noted throughout the continuum of risk and does not appear to be secondary to missed events or use of preventive therapies.
(more…)





















