4.2 Article

Framingham Risk Scores for coronary heart disease in a cohort of Saudi Arabian men and women with spinal cord injury

期刊

ACTA NEUROLOGICA BELGICA
卷 116, 期 2, 页码 179-184

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13760-015-0529-6

关键词

Cardiac risk assessment; Coronary heart disease; Framingham risk score; Saudi Arabia; Spinal cord injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

People with spinal cord injury (SCI) are at increased risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD). This study aimed at predicting CHD risk in a cohort of Saudi patients with SCI in comparison with patients without SCI and to correlate different demographic and clinical factors with Framingham Risk Score (FRS) in SCI patients. The study was conducted at the rehabilitation and the main hospitals of King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; on sixty patients with SCI and sixty controls of age >= 20 years. FRS was calculated on a web-based calculator. For the SCI group, sub-groups were made for statistical analysis based on gender, cigarette smoking, neurological level and completeness of injury. The mean FRS for the SCI group (2 +/- 7.9) was significantly higher (P < 0.001) than the control group (-2.24 +/- 3.4). The 10-year risk of developing CHD was low in 90 % of the SCI group and 100 % of the controls. The age, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and serum total cholesterol had a positive correlation to FRS in SCI patients and females had a significantly higher mean FRS than males (P = 0.03). There was no significant relation of resultant FRS with time since SCI, smoking history and neurological level or completeness of injury. Our sample of Saudi patients with SCI had a higher FRS as compared to controls, however, majority had a low risk of developing CHD in next 10 years. The age, SBP and total cholesterol surfaced as positive predictors of CHD in SCI patients. Time since SCI, smoking, and neurological level or completeness of injury did not influence the resultant FRS and thus the development of CHD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据