A cross-sectional validation study comparing the accuracy of different risk scores in assessing the risk of acute coronary syndrome among patients in a tertiary care hospital in Kerala

一项横断面验证研究比较了不同风险评分在评估喀拉拉邦一家三级医院患者急性冠脉综合征风险方面的准确性。

阅读:2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are many cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score calculators in practice, which are not based on Indian population data. OBJECTIVES: To identify the best CVD risk score calculator applicable in the Indian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1000 patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were included in the study and their CVD risk score, had they presented before the event, was calculated. The Framingham risk score (FRS-body mass index [BMI], FRS-fasting lipid profile [FLP]), the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled cohort equation risk calculator (ACC/AHA PCE), Joint British Society risk calculator 3 (JBS3) and the World Health Organization (WHO) risk prediction charts (WHO TC and WHO without TC [WHO NO TC]) were used. RESULTS: It was seen that among the 1000 people included in the study, the FRS-BMI (59.2%), FRS-FLP (61.5%), ACC/AHA (70.1%) and the JBS3 (62.5%) identified a majority as having a risk of ≥20%, whereas both the WHO TC (65.3%) and the WHO NO TC (64.5%) identified a majority of the ACS patients as having a risk of <20%. The sensitivity was highest for the ACC/AHA (87.8%), FRS-FLP (85.1%) and then JBS3 (80.1%), whereas the specificity was highest for the WHO TC (83.6%) and the WHO NO TC (82.1%). When looking at the accuracy, the FRS-FLP was the most accurate with 80.1%, whereas the ACC/AHA and the JBS3 followed at 74.7% and 73.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ACC/AHA seems to be an acceptable risk prediction system to be used in the Indian population and is also relatively easy and cheap to use.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。