Allan G Michael, Nouri Faeze, Korownyk Christina, Kolber Michael R, Vandermeer Ben, McCormack James
Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Family Medicine-Research Program, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2T4, Canada.
Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Sep 7;8:417. doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1401-8.
Risk estimates for the same patient can vary substantially among cardiovascular risk calculators and the reasons are not fully explained. We compared the relative risk increases for consistent risk factors changes across different cardiovascular risk calculators.
Five clinicians independently selected 16 calculators providing absolute risk estimations. Hypothetical patients were generated using a combination of seven risk factors [age, gender, smoking, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), total cholesterol and diabetes] dichotomized to high and low risk, generating 2(7) patients (128 total). Relative risk increases due to specific risk factors were determined and compared.
The 16 selected calculators were from six countries, used 5- and 10-year predictions, and estimated CVD or coronary heart disease risk. Across the different calculators for non-diabetic patients, changing age from 50 to 70 produced average relative risk increases from 82 to 395%, gender (female to male) 35-225%, smoking status 31-118%, systolic blood pressure (120-160 mmHg) 16-124%, total cholesterol (4-7 mmol/L) 51-302% and HDL (1.3-0.8 mmol/L) 27-133%. Similar results were found among diabetic patients. Some calculators appeared to have consistently higher relative risk increases over multiple risk factors.
Cardiovascular risk calculators weigh the same risk factors differently. For each risk factor, the relative risk increase from the calculator with the highest increase was generally three to eight times greater than the relative risk increase from the calculator with lowest increase. This likely contributes to some of the inconsistency in risk calculator estimation. It also limits the use of risk calculators in estimating the benefits of therapy.
对于同一患者,心血管风险计算器得出的风险估计值可能存在很大差异,其原因尚未完全明确。我们比较了不同心血管风险计算器中一致的风险因素变化所导致的相对风险增加情况。
五名临床医生独立挑选了16种提供绝对风险估计值的计算器。使用七个风险因素(年龄、性别、吸烟、血压、高密度脂蛋白(HDL)、总胆固醇和糖尿病)的组合生成假设患者,将这些因素分为高风险和低风险两类,共生成2(7)名患者(总计128名)。确定并比较了特定风险因素导致的相对风险增加情况。
所选的16种计算器来自六个国家,用于5年和10年预测,并估计心血管疾病(CVD)或冠心病风险。在不同的非糖尿病患者计算器中,年龄从50岁变为70岁导致的平均相对风险增加从82%至395%不等,性别(女性变为男性)为35%至225%,吸烟状况为31%至118%,收缩压(120 - 160 mmHg)为16%至124%,总胆固醇(4 - 7 mmol/L)为51%至302%,HDL(1.3 - 0.8 mmol/L)为27%至133%。糖尿病患者中也发现了类似结果。一些计算器在多个风险因素上似乎始终具有较高的相对风险增加。
心血管风险计算器对相同风险因素的权衡方式不同。对于每个风险因素,相对风险增加最高的计算器所导致的相对风险增加通常比相对风险增加最低的计算器高出三至八倍。这可能是风险计算器估计不一致的部分原因。它也限制了风险计算器在评估治疗益处方面的应用。