Matthew C Tattersall1, Kunal N Karmali1, Ronald E Gangnon2, Jon G Keevil3. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Ave, MC 3248, Madison, WI 53792, USA. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Ave, MC 3248, Madison, WI 53792, USA. Electronic address: jgk@medicine.wisc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Framingham Global Cardiovascular Disease (FRS-CVD) risk assessment is a proposed alternative for the assessment of hard coronary heart disease (FRS-CHD) event risk. Beyond heart attack and death, FRS-CVD risk adds the end points of cerebrovascular disease, angina, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the population impact of using FRS-CVD instead of FRS-CHD risk prediction on U.S. adults. METHODS: We analyzed FRS-CHD and FRS-CVD risk in men age 45-74 and women age 55-74 without cardiovascular disease or diabetes, using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006. We stratified the population into 10-year risk categories: low: <6%, moderate ≥ 6 to <10%, moderate high ≥ 10 to <20%, and high ≥ 20% by both risk models, and assessed change in risk category distribution and achievement of lipid goals. RESULTS: We analyzed 1020 subjects who statistically represent approximately 50 million U.S. adults. When the FRS-CVD was used, we found that 63% of men and 74% of women increase at least one risk category compared with when the FRS-CHD is used. Overall, the low-risk population decreases from 52% to 16% and the high-risk group increases from 4% to 20%. Of the subjects changing risk categories, 30% will now fail to meet their new corresponding lipid goals. CONCLUSIONS: FRS-CVD end points are more comprehensive, yet the population implications of such a change may be profound. The use of a FRS-CVD risk model significantly increases the intermediate and high-risk groups, thus increasing the number of individuals eligible for novel risk assessment tools such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, coronary calcium scoring, and more frequent use of pharmacotherapy.
BACKGROUND: The Framingham Global Cardiovascular Disease (FRS-CVD) risk assessment is a proposed alternative for the assessment of hard coronary heart disease (FRS-CHD) event risk. Beyond heart attack and death, FRS-CVD risk adds the end points of cerebrovascular disease, angina, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the population impact of using FRS-CVD instead of FRS-CHD risk prediction on U.S. adults. METHODS: We analyzed FRS-CHD and FRS-CVD risk in men age 45-74 and women age 55-74 without cardiovascular disease or diabetes, using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006. We stratified the population into 10-year risk categories: low: <6%, moderate ≥ 6 to <10%, moderate high ≥ 10 to <20%, and high ≥ 20% by both risk models, and assessed change in risk category distribution and achievement of lipid goals. RESULTS: We analyzed 1020 subjects who statistically represent approximately 50 million U.S. adults. When the FRS-CVD was used, we found that 63% of men and 74% of women increase at least one risk category compared with when the FRS-CHD is used. Overall, the low-risk population decreases from 52% to 16% and the high-risk group increases from 4% to 20%. Of the subjects changing risk categories, 30% will now fail to meet their new corresponding lipid goals. CONCLUSIONS: FRS-CVD end points are more comprehensive, yet the population implications of such a change may be profound. The use of a FRS-CVD risk model significantly increases the intermediate and high-risk groups, thus increasing the number of individuals eligible for novel risk assessment tools such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, coronary calcium scoring, and more frequent use of pharmacotherapy.
Authors: Giuseppina Imperatore; Betsy L Cadwell; Linda Geiss; Jinan B Saadinne; Desmond E Williams; Earl S Ford; Theodore J Thompson; K M Venkat Narayan; Edward W Gregg Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jacques Genest; Ruth McPherson; Jiri Frohlich; Todd Anderson; Norm Campbell; André Carpentier; Patrick Couture; Robert Dufour; George Fodor; Gordon A Francis; Steven Grover; Milan Gupta; Robert A Hegele; David C Lau; Lawrence Leiter; Gary F Lewis; Eva Lonn; G B John Mancini; Dominic Ng; Glen J Pearson; Allan Sniderman; James A Stone; Ehud Ur Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Robert J Kuczmarski; Cynthia L Ogden; Shumei S Guo; Laurence M Grummer-Strawn; Katherine M Flegal; Zuguo Mei; Rong Wei; Lester R Curtin; Alex F Roche; Clifford L Johnson Journal: Vital Health Stat 11 Date: 2002-05
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert Adams; Mercedes Carnethon; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Katherine Flegal; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Yuling Hong Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 29.690