[Comparison of the SCORE function chart and the Framingham-REGICOR equation to estimate the cardiovascular risk in an urban population after 10 years of follow-up].

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Framingham-REGICOR and SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) are 2 functions charts recommended to estimate the cardiovascular risk stratification in Spain. The aim of the present study was to validate to 10 years the SCORE and REGICOR functions charts in 40 to 65 years old population.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

608 patients (56.7% female) with non evidence of cardiovascular disease were included in the present study. Patients were classified as high risk by REGICOR (> or = 10%) and by SCORE (> or = 5%) functions.

RESULTS

The 90.6% of the population (551 subjects) did not experienced any cardiovascular events during the 10 years follow-up. The REGICOR function chart underestimated the coronary risk (4.9% vs 7.9%; p < 0.001), whereas the SCORE overestimated the cardiovascular risk of death (2.1% vs 1.5%; p < 0.001). In the SCORE function, the average risk of patients with events was 6.1%, whereas the average risk of patients without events was 2.0% (p < 0.001) and 7.1% vs 4.8% (p < 0.001) in the REGICOR equation. The SCORE function obtained better validity criteria than REGICOR with a sensibility of 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.2-67.2), especificity of 91.7%, (95% CI, 91.2-92.2) positive likelihood ratio of 8 (95% CI, 7.5-8.5), and eficacy of 91.1% (95% CI, 90.6-91.6). These results were observed in both sexes: women -sensibility: 33.3% (95% CI, 32.4-34.2); especificity: 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5-98.3)- and men -sensibility: 83.3% (95% CI, 82.7-83.9); especificity: 84.0% (95% CI, 83.4-84.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The SCORE equation obtains better validity criteria than the REGICOR equation both in the total population and in males and females separately. These results make the SCORE function a powerful tool to estimate the cardiovascular risk.