Giavarina Davide, Barzon Elena, Cigolini Massimo, Mezzena Gabriella, Soffiati Giuliano
Department of Clinical Pathology, San Bortolo Hospital, Via Rodolfi 37, I-36100 Vicenza, Italy.
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2007 May;17(4):311-8. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2005.12.008. Epub 2006 Mar 20.
Guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease recommend the use of risk-assessment methods to identify high risk patients who can benefit from lifestyle changes and/or drug treatment. Although all these risk-prediction methods are based on the same principle, they produce different risk estimates. The aim of this study was to compare the most recent and widely used cardiovascular risk-prediction methods and the respective guidelines when applied to Italian cohorts.
Seven different risk-assessment methods were applied to two groups of subjects, 536 healthy individuals and 426 diabetic patients. Sensitivity and specificity of Framingham-based risk-assessment methods were calculated using the Framingham full equation as the reference standard. The extent of concordance among the different risk-assessment methods was determined by kappa test. By using NCEP-ATPIII risk calculator, modified Sheffield tables, Joint European Societies charts, Joint British Societies charts, Italian CUORE Project charts, European SCORE charts and New Zealand National Heart Foundation charts in the group of 536 healthy subjects, lipid-lowering treatment would be recommended in 17.5%, 12.7%, 12.1%, 8.6%, 5.0%, 4.7%, and 1.1% subjects, respectively. By using the same risk-assessment methods in the group of 426 diabetic patients, treatment would be recommended for 100%, 82.9%, 66.9%, 77.7%, 43.0%, 74.9%, and 47.4% patients, respectively. The Joint British charts and the modified Sheffield tables showed the closest agreement with the reference standard.
Our study confirms that the use of different risk-assessment methods in clinical practice can substantially change risk estimation and consequently statin prescription rate. The Framingham-based risk-assessment methods and particularly the NCEP-ATPIII guidelines select for lipid-lowering treatment a higher number of subjects than those identified according to European and Italian recommendations.
心血管疾病一级预防指南建议采用风险评估方法来识别能从生活方式改变和/或药物治疗中获益的高危患者。尽管所有这些风险预测方法都基于相同的原则,但它们得出的风险估计值不同。本研究的目的是比较最新且广泛使用的心血管风险预测方法以及应用于意大利队列时各自的指南。
将七种不同的风险评估方法应用于两组受试者,即536名健康个体和426名糖尿病患者。以弗雷明汉全方程作为参考标准,计算基于弗雷明汉的风险评估方法的敏感性和特异性。通过kappa检验确定不同风险评估方法之间的一致性程度。在536名健康受试者组中,使用美国国家胆固醇教育计划成人治疗组第三次报告(NCEP-ATPIII)风险计算器、改良的谢菲尔德表、欧洲心脏病学会联合图表、英国心脏病学会联合图表、意大利心脏研究项目图表、欧洲心血管疾病风险评估系统(SCORE)图表和新西兰国家心脏基金会图表时,分别会建议17.5%、12.7%、12.1%、8.6%、5.0%、4.7%和1.1%的受试者接受降脂治疗。在426名糖尿病患者组中,使用相同的风险评估方法时,分别会建议100%、82.9%、66.9%、77.7%、43.0%、74.9%和47.4%的患者接受治疗。英国心脏病学会联合图表和改良的谢菲尔德表与参考标准的一致性最为接近。
我们的研究证实,在临床实践中使用不同的风险评估方法会显著改变风险估计,进而改变他汀类药物的处方率。基于弗雷明汉的风险评估方法,尤其是NCEP-ATPIII指南选择进行降脂治疗的受试者数量高于根据欧洲和意大利建议确定的人数。