伊朗人群动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病 (ASCVD) 与弗雷明汉风险评分 (FRS) 的比较

Matin Sepehrinia , Hossein Pourmontaseri , Mehrab Sayadi , Mohammad Mehdi Naghizadeh , Reza Homayounfar , Mojtaba Farjam , Azizallah Dehghan , Abdulhakim Alkamel
{"title":"伊朗人群动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病 (ASCVD) 与弗雷明汉风险评分 (FRS) 的比较","authors":"Matin Sepehrinia ,&nbsp;Hossein Pourmontaseri ,&nbsp;Mehrab Sayadi ,&nbsp;Mohammad Mehdi Naghizadeh ,&nbsp;Reza Homayounfar ,&nbsp;Mojtaba Farjam ,&nbsp;Azizallah Dehghan ,&nbsp;Abdulhakim Alkamel","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcrp.2024.200287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Framingham risk score (FRS) and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score (ASCVDrs) are widely used tools developed based on the American population. This study aimed to compare the ASCVDrs and FRS in an Iranian population.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>The participants of the Fasa Adult Cohort Study and the patients of the cardiovascular database of Vali-Asr Hospital of Fasa, aged 40–80 years, were involved in the present cross-sectional study. After excluding non-eligible participants, the individuals with a history of myocardial infarction or admission to the cardiology ward due to heart failure were considered high-risk, and the others were considered low-risk. The discriminative ability of FRS and ASCVDrs was evaluated and compared using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The correlation and agreement of ASCVDrs and FRS were tested using Cohen Kappa and Spearman.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Finally, 8983 individuals (mean age:53.9 ± 9.5 y, 49.2 % male), including 1827 high-risk participants, entered the study. ASCVDrs detected a greater portion of participants as high-risk in comparison with FRS (28.7 % vs. 15.7 %). ASVD (AUC:0.794) had a higher discriminative ability than FRS (AUC:0.746), and both showed better discrimination in women. Optimal cut-off points for both ASCVDrs (4.36 %) and FRS (9.05 %) were lower than the original ones and in men. Compared to FRS, ASCVDrs had a higher sensitivity (79.3 % vs. 71.6 %) and lower specificity (64.5 % vs. 65.1 %). FRS and ASCVDrs had a moderate agreement (kappa:0.593,<em>p</em>-value&lt;0.001) and were significantly correlated (Spearman:0.772,<em>p</em>-value&lt;0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>ASCVDrs had a more accurate prediction of cardiovascular events and identified a larger number of people as high-risk in the Iranian population.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29726,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 200287"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772487524000527/pdfft?md5=9b720b85c13a848f10fdf7f8fbb6b239&pid=1-s2.0-S2772487524000527-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and Framingham risk scores (FRS) in an Iranian population\",\"authors\":\"Matin Sepehrinia ,&nbsp;Hossein Pourmontaseri ,&nbsp;Mehrab Sayadi ,&nbsp;Mohammad Mehdi Naghizadeh ,&nbsp;Reza Homayounfar ,&nbsp;Mojtaba Farjam ,&nbsp;Azizallah Dehghan ,&nbsp;Abdulhakim Alkamel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijcrp.2024.200287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Framingham risk score (FRS) and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score (ASCVDrs) are widely used tools developed based on the American population. This study aimed to compare the ASCVDrs and FRS in an Iranian population.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>The participants of the Fasa Adult Cohort Study and the patients of the cardiovascular database of Vali-Asr Hospital of Fasa, aged 40–80 years, were involved in the present cross-sectional study. After excluding non-eligible participants, the individuals with a history of myocardial infarction or admission to the cardiology ward due to heart failure were considered high-risk, and the others were considered low-risk. The discriminative ability of FRS and ASCVDrs was evaluated and compared using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The correlation and agreement of ASCVDrs and FRS were tested using Cohen Kappa and Spearman.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Finally, 8983 individuals (mean age:53.9 ± 9.5 y, 49.2 % male), including 1827 high-risk participants, entered the study. ASCVDrs detected a greater portion of participants as high-risk in comparison with FRS (28.7 % vs. 15.7 %). ASVD (AUC:0.794) had a higher discriminative ability than FRS (AUC:0.746), and both showed better discrimination in women. Optimal cut-off points for both ASCVDrs (4.36 %) and FRS (9.05 %) were lower than the original ones and in men. Compared to FRS, ASCVDrs had a higher sensitivity (79.3 % vs. 71.6 %) and lower specificity (64.5 % vs. 65.1 %). FRS and ASCVDrs had a moderate agreement (kappa:0.593,<em>p</em>-value&lt;0.001) and were significantly correlated (Spearman:0.772,<em>p</em>-value&lt;0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>ASCVDrs had a more accurate prediction of cardiovascular events and identified a larger number of people as high-risk in the Iranian population.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29726,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention\",\"volume\":\"21 \",\"pages\":\"Article 200287\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772487524000527/pdfft?md5=9b720b85c13a848f10fdf7f8fbb6b239&pid=1-s2.0-S2772487524000527-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772487524000527\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772487524000527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景弗雷明汉风险评分(FRS)和动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病风险评分(ASCVDrs)是根据美国人群开发的广泛使用的工具。本研究旨在比较 ASCVDrs 和 FRS 在伊朗人群中的应用情况。方法:本横断面研究的对象是法萨成人队列研究(Fasa Adult Cohort Study)的参与者和法萨瓦利-阿斯尔医院(Vali-Asr Hospital of Fasa)心血管数据库的患者,年龄在 40-80 岁之间。在排除不符合条件的参与者后,有心肌梗死病史或因心力衰竭入住心脏病病房的人被视为高危人群,其他人被视为低危人群。采用接收器操作特征曲线分析法对 FRS 和 ASCVDrs 的判别能力进行了评估和比较。结果最终有 8983 人(平均年龄:53.9 ± 9.5 岁,49.2% 为男性)参与了研究,其中包括 1827 名高风险参与者。与 FRS 相比,ASCVDs 检测出的高危人群比例更高(28.7% 对 15.7%)。ASVD(AUC:0.794)比 FRS(AUC:0.746)具有更高的判别能力,两者对女性的判别能力都更强。ASCVDrs(4.36%)和FRS(9.05%)的最佳临界点均低于原始临界点,且男性的临界点也低于原始临界点。与 FRS 相比,ASCVDrs 的灵敏度更高(79.3% 对 71.6%),特异性更低(64.5% 对 65.1%)。结论ASCVDrs能更准确地预测心血管事件,并能在伊朗人群中识别出更多的高危人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and Framingham risk scores (FRS) in an Iranian population

Background

Framingham risk score (FRS) and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score (ASCVDrs) are widely used tools developed based on the American population. This study aimed to compare the ASCVDrs and FRS in an Iranian population.

Method

The participants of the Fasa Adult Cohort Study and the patients of the cardiovascular database of Vali-Asr Hospital of Fasa, aged 40–80 years, were involved in the present cross-sectional study. After excluding non-eligible participants, the individuals with a history of myocardial infarction or admission to the cardiology ward due to heart failure were considered high-risk, and the others were considered low-risk. The discriminative ability of FRS and ASCVDrs was evaluated and compared using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The correlation and agreement of ASCVDrs and FRS were tested using Cohen Kappa and Spearman.

Results

Finally, 8983 individuals (mean age:53.9 ± 9.5 y, 49.2 % male), including 1827 high-risk participants, entered the study. ASCVDrs detected a greater portion of participants as high-risk in comparison with FRS (28.7 % vs. 15.7 %). ASVD (AUC:0.794) had a higher discriminative ability than FRS (AUC:0.746), and both showed better discrimination in women. Optimal cut-off points for both ASCVDrs (4.36 %) and FRS (9.05 %) were lower than the original ones and in men. Compared to FRS, ASCVDrs had a higher sensitivity (79.3 % vs. 71.6 %) and lower specificity (64.5 % vs. 65.1 %). FRS and ASCVDrs had a moderate agreement (kappa:0.593,p-value<0.001) and were significantly correlated (Spearman:0.772,p-value<0.001).

Conclusions

ASCVDrs had a more accurate prediction of cardiovascular events and identified a larger number of people as high-risk in the Iranian population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
72 days
期刊最新文献
Implications for global health of heart failure and lung cancer mortality trends in aging populations Vaping illusions: The hidden risks of E-cigarette use among young Filipinos and adolescents in Latin America Predicting cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality using the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio: Insights from explainable machine learning models Unraveling trends and disparities in acute myocardial infarction-related mortality among adult cancer patients: A nationwide CDC-WONDER analysis (1999–2020) Expression level of miR-146a is associated with the coronary lesion severity and clinical prognosis in patients with unstable angina pectoris
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1