A consultation-based method is equal to SCORE and an extensive laboratory-based method in predicting risk of future cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND

As cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the most common causes of mortality worldwide, much interest has been focused on reliable methods to predict cardiovascular risk.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional, population-based screening study with 17-year follow-up in Southern Sweden.

METHODS

We compared a non-laboratory, consultation-based risk assessment method comprising age, sex, present smoking, prevalent diabetes or hypertension at baseline, blood pressure (systolic > or =140 or diastolic > or =90), waist/height ratio and family history of CVD to Systemic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) and a third model including several laboratory analyses, respectively, in predicting CVD risk. The study included clinical baseline data on 689 participants aged 40-59 years without CVD. Blood samples were analyzed for blood glucose, serum lipids, insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1, C-reactive protein, asymmetric dimethyl arginine and symmetric dimethyl arginine. During 17 years, the incidence of total CVD (first event) and death was registered.

RESULTS

A non-laboratory-based risk assessment model, including variables easily obtained during one consultation visit to a general practitioner, predicted cardiovascular events as accurately [hazard ratio (HR): 2.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.18-3.39, P<0.001] as the established SCORE algorithm (HR: 2.73; 95% CI: 2.10-3.55, P<0.001), which requires laboratory testing. Furthermore, adding a combination of sophisticated laboratory measurements covering lipids, inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, did not confer any additional value to the prediction of CVD risk (HR: 2.72; 95% CI: 2.19-3.37, P<0.001). The c-statistics for the consultation model (0.794; 95% CI: 0.762-0.823) was not significantly different from SCORE (0.767; 95% CI: 0.733-0.798, P=0.12) or the extended model (0.806; 95% CI: 0.774-0.835, P=0.55).

CONCLUSION

A risk algorithm based on non-laboratory data from a single primary care consultation predicted long-term cardiovascular risk as accurately as either SCORE or an elaborate laboratory-based method in a defined middle-aged population.