Department of Primary Care Medicine and Julius Center UM,University of Malaya, KualaLumpur, Malaysia.
Heart. 2011 May;97(9):689-97. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2010.220442.
To compare the strengths and limitations of cardiovascular risk scores available for clinicians in assessing the global (absolute) risk of cardiovascular disease.
Review of cardiovascular risk scores.
Medline (1966 to May 2009) using a mixture of MeSH terms and free text for the keywords 'cardiovascular', 'risk prediction' and 'cohort studies'.
A study was eligible if it fulfilled the following criteria: (1) it was a cohort study of adults in the general population with no prior history of cardiovascular disease and not restricted by a disease condition; (2) the primary objective was the development of a cardiovascular risk score/equation that predicted an individual's absolute cardiovascular risk in 5-10 years; (3) the score could be used by a clinician to calculate the risk for an individual patient.
21 risk scores from 18 papers were identified from 3536 papers. Cohort size ranged from 4372 participants (SHS) to 1591209 records (QRISK2). More than half of the cardiovascular risk scores (11) were from studies with recruitment starting after 1980. Definitions and methods for measuring risk predictors and outcomes varied widely between scores. Fourteen cardiovascular risk scores reported data on prior treatment, but this was mainly limited to antihypertensive treatment. Only two studies reported prior use of lipid-lowering agents. None reported on prior use of platelet inhibitors or data on treatment drop-ins.
The use of risk-factor-modifying drugs-for example, statins-and disease-modifying medication-for example, platelet inhibitors-was not accounted for. In addition, none of the risk scores addressed the effect of treatment drop-ins-that is, treatment started during the study period. Ideally, a risk score should be derived from a population free from treatment. The lack of accounting for treatment effect and the wide variation in study characteristics, predictors and outcomes causes difficulties in the use of cardiovascular risk scores for clinical treatment decision.
比较临床医生可用的心血管风险评分在评估心血管疾病总体(绝对)风险方面的优势和局限性。
心血管风险评分回顾。
使用 MeSH 术语和关键词“心血管”、“风险预测”和“队列研究”的自由文本,对 Medline(1966 年至 2009 年 5 月)进行检索。
如果研究符合以下标准,则符合入选条件:(1)它是一项针对无心血管疾病既往史的普通人群中成年人的队列研究,不受疾病状况限制;(2)主要目的是开发一种心血管风险评分/方程,以预测个体在 5-10 年内的个体心血管风险;(3)该评分可由临床医生用于计算个体患者的风险。
从 3536 篇文献中确定了 18 篇论文中的 21 个风险评分。队列规模从 4372 名参与者(SHS)到 1591209 条记录(QRISK2)不等。超过一半的心血管风险评分(11 个)来自于 1980 年后开始招募的研究。评分之间风险预测因子和结果的定义和测量方法差异很大。14 个心血管风险评分报告了关于既往治疗的数据,但这主要限于降压治疗。只有两项研究报告了降脂药物的既往使用情况。没有研究报告血小板抑制剂的既往使用情况或关于治疗中断的数据。
未考虑风险因素修饰药物(例如他汀类药物)和疾病修饰药物(例如血小板抑制剂)的使用情况。此外,没有一个风险评分涉及治疗中断的影响,即研究期间开始的治疗。理想情况下,风险评分应来自未接受治疗的人群。缺乏对治疗效果的考虑以及研究特征、预测因子和结果的广泛差异导致在临床治疗决策中使用心血管风险评分存在困难。