Department of Family Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22911, USA.
Postgrad Med. 2010 Jul;122(4):192-9. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2010.07.2186.
The objective of this article is to review the evidence basis for short-term risk assessments of overall coronary heart disease (CHD) burden as compared with lifetime risk estimates of CHD, based on the current medical literature. We reviewed literature published in the last 6 years using the terms "cardiovascular prevention," "Framingham risk scoring," "lifetime risk," and "cardiovascular risk assessment," and subsequently evaluated 98 publications to determine the variation in these approaches to estimate cardiovascular risk factors and impact on clinical decision making. The current evidence base suggests that lifetime risk estimates offset the significant impact of age on traditional, short-term risk estimates of cardiovascular risk. We conclude that the use of lifetime risk estimates may be more clinically meaningful than traditional, short-term risk estimates to assess an individual's overall risk burden, and may prevent the potential delay of therapeutic interventions to reduce cardiovascular events. For primary care, this difference may be of relevance to patients and should be communicated to them.
本文旨在根据当前医学文献,回顾短期整体冠心病(CHD)负担风险评估与 CHD 终生风险评估相比的证据基础。我们检索了过去 6 年中使用“心血管预防”、“弗雷明汉风险评分”、“终生风险”和“心血管风险评估”等术语发表的文献,随后评估了 98 篇文献,以确定这些评估心血管风险因素的方法的差异及其对临床决策的影响。目前的证据基础表明,终生风险评估可以抵消年龄对传统短期心血管风险评估的重大影响。我们得出结论,使用终生风险评估可能比传统的短期风险评估更能准确评估个体的整体风险负担,并且可能预防潜在的延迟治疗干预以降低心血管事件的发生。对于基层医疗保健,这种差异可能与患者有关,应该与他们沟通。