4.6 Review

The New Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 613-619

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2015.02.001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines published in 2001, estimation of cardiovascular risk was recommended based on the Framingham score for 10-year risk of myocardial infarction and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society currently recommends the Framingham total cardiovascular risk score. During development of joint guidelines released in 2013 by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA), the decision was taken to develop a new risk score. This resulted in the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator. This risk calculator, based on major National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded cohort studies, is designed to predict 10-year risk of 'hard' atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events, namely, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal, or fatal stroke. Considerable strengths are its inclusion of stroke as an end point and race as a characteristic, which allows better risk prediction especially in African-American individuals, plus provision of lifetime ASCVD risk estimates for adults aged 20-59 years. Notable omissions from the risk factors include chronic kidney disease and any measure of social deprivation. An early criticism of the Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator has been its alleged overestimation of ASCVD risk which, if confirmed in the general population, is likely to result in statin therapy being prescribed to many individuals at lower risk than the intended 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk threshold for treatment in the joint ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines. In this review we discuss the development of the new risk calculator, its strengths and weaknesses, and potential implications for its routine use.

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

4.6
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