Journal
HEART
Volume 99, Issue 10, Pages 737-742Publisher
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302922
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Medical Research Council, UK
- Economic and Social Research Council, UK
- British Heart Foundation, UK
- Health and Safety Executive, UK
- Department of Health, UK
- BUPA Foundation, UK
- National Heart Lung and Blood Institute , USA [R01HL036310]
- NIH (National Institute on Aging), USA [R01AG013196, R01AG034454]
- British Heart Foundation
- European Science Foundation
- UK Medical Research Council
- EU New OSH ERA research programme
- Academy of Finland, Finland
- ESRC [ES/J023299/1] Funding Source: UKRI
- MRC [MR/K013351/1] Funding Source: UKRI
- British Heart Foundation [RG/13/2/30098, PG/11/63/29011] Funding Source: researchfish
- Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J023299/1] Funding Source: researchfish
- Medical Research Council [MR/K013351/1] Funding Source: researchfish
- Stroke Association [TSA2008/05] Funding Source: researchfish
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objectives To examine the capacity of existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk algorithms widely used in primary care, to predict frailty. Design Prospective cohort study. Risk algorithms at baseline (1997-1999) were the Framingham CVD, coronary heart disease and stroke risk scores, and the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation. Setting Civil Service departments in London, UK. Participants 3895 participants (73% men) aged 45-69 years and free of CVD at baseline. Main outcome measure Status of frailty at the end of follow-up (2007-2009), based on the following indicators: self-reported exhaustion, low physical activity, slow walking speed, low grip strength and weight loss. Results At the end of the follow-up, 2.8% (n=108) of the sample was classified as frail. All four CVD risk scores were associated with future risk of developing frailty, with ORs per one SD increment in the score ranging from 1.35 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.51) for the Framingham stroke score to 1.42 (1.23 to 1.62) for the Framingham CVD score. These associations remained after excluding incident CVD cases. For comparison, the corresponding ORs for the risk scores and incident cardiovascular events varied between 1.36 (1.15 to 1.61) and 1.64 (1.50 to 1.80) depending on the risk algorithm. Conclusions The use of CVD risk scores in clinical practice may also have utility for frailty prediction.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available