Pell JP

Language: Spanish
References: 43
Page: 6-16
PDF size: 333.37 Kb.

Text Extraction

Global risk scores use individual level information on non-modifiable risk factors (such as age, sex, ethnicity and family history) and modifiable risk factors (such as smoking status and blood pressure) to predict an individual's absolute risk of an adverse event over a specified period of time in the future. Cardiovascular risk scores have two major uses in practice. First, they can be used to dichotomise people into a group whose baseline risk, and therefore potential absolute benefit, is sufficiently high to justify the costs and risks associated with an intervention (whether treatment or prevention) and a group with a lower absolute risk to whom the intervention is usually denied. Second, they can be used to assess the effectiveness of an intervention (such as smoking cessation or antihypertensive treatment) at reducing an individual's risk of future adverse events. In this context, they can be helpful in informing patients, motivating them to change their lifestyle, and reinforcing the importance of continued compliance.

REFERENCES

1. Parkes G. Using risk scores with patients. BMJ. 2010;340:c3327.

2. Cooper A, Nherera L, Calvert N, et al. Clinical Guidelines and Evidence Review for Lipid Mo-dification: Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardio-vascular Disease. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners, 2008.

3. Tunstall-Pedoe H. Cardiovascular risk and risk scores: ASSIGN, Framingham, QRISK and others: how to choose. Heart. 2011;97:442-4.

4. de la Iglesia B, Potter JF, Poulter NR, et al. Per-formance of the ASSIGN cardiovascular disease risk score on a UK cohort of patients from general practice. Heart. 2011;97:491-9.

5. Collins GS, Altman DG. An independent and external validation of QRISK2 cardiovascular disease risk score: a prospective open cohort study. BMJ. 2010;340:c3442.

6. Sheridan SL, Crespo E. Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefit or harms? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:60.

7. Liew SM, Doust J, Glasziou P. Cardiovascular risk scores do not account for the effect of treatment: a review. Heart. 2011;97:689-97.

8. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Robson R, et al. Derivation, validation, and evaluation of a new QRISK model to estimate lifetime risk of cardio-vascular disease: cohort study using QResearch database. BMJ. 2010;341:c6624.

9. Bueno H, Fernandez-Aviles F. Use of risk scores in acute coronary syndromes. Heart. 2012;98:162-8.

10. Fox KA, Eagle KA, Gore JM, et al; for the GRACE and GRACE2 Investigators. The Global Registry of acute coronary events, 1999 to 2009 - GRACE. Heart. 2010;96:1095-101.

11. O'Connor CM, Whellan DJ, Wojdyla D, et al. Factors related to morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure with systolic dysfunction: the HF-ACTION Predictive Risk Score Model. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:63-71.

12. Peterson PN, Rumsfeld JS, Liang L, et al. A validated risk score for in-hospitality mortality in patients with heart failure from the American Heart Association get with the guidelines program. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:25-32.

13. Van Dieren S, Beulens JW, Kengne AP, et al. Prediction models for the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a sys-tematic review. Heart. 2012;98:360-9.

14. Melander O, Newton-Cheh C, Almgren P, et al. Novel and conventional biomarkers for prediction of incident cardiovascular events in the community. JAMA. 2009;302:49-57.

15. Rana JS, Cole M, Despres JP, et al. Inflammatory biomarkers and the prediction of coronary event among people at intermediate risk: the EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study. Heart. 2009;95:1682-7.

16. Zethelius B, Berglund L, Sundstrom J, et al. Use of multiple biomarkers to improve the prediction of death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2107-16.

17. Lorgis L, Zeller M, Dentan G, et al. Prognostic value of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in elderly people with acute myocardial infarction: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2009;338: b1605.

18. Lorgis L, Cottin Y, Danchin N, etal. Impact of obesity on the prognostic value of the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBMP) in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Heart. 2011;97:551-6.

19. Tello-Montoliu A, Marin F, Roldan V, et al. The additive value of biomarkers to clinical risk scores in acute coronary syndrome. Are biomarkers really ready for real world usage? Heart. 2010;96:227-8.

20. Damman P, Beijk MA, Kuijt WJ, etal. Multiple biomarkers at admission significantly improves the prediction of mortality in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:29-36.

21. Brugts JJ, Akin S, Helming AM, et al. The predictive value of cardiac biomarkers in prognosis and risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2011;26:449-56.

22. Avellino A, Collins SP, Fermann GJ. Risk stratification and short-term prognosis in acute heart failure syndromes: a review of novel biomarkers. Biomarkers. 2011;16:379-92.

23. Gustav Smith J, Newton-Cheh C, Almgren P, et al. Assessment of conventional cardiovascular risk factors and multiple biomarkers for the prediction of incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1712-19.

24. Ketchum ES, Levy WC. Multivariate risk scores and patient outcomes in advanced heart failure. Congest Heart Fail. 2011;17:205-12.

25. Haines DE, Wang Y, Curtis J. Implantable cardio-verter-defibrillator registry risk score models for acute procedural complications of death after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implanta-tion. Circulation. 2011;123:2069-76.

26. Wilson SR, Lin FY, Min JK. Role of coronary artery calcium score and coronary CT angiography in the diagnosis and risk stratification of individuals with suspected coronary artery disease. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2011;13:271-9.

27. Xie W, Liang L, Zhao L, et al. Combination of carotid intima-media thickness and plaque for better predicting risk of ischaemic cardiovascular events. Heart. 2011;97:1326-31.

28. Henriksson M, Palmer S, Chen R, et al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of using prognostic bio-markers with decision markers: case study in prioritizing patients waiting for coronary artery surgery. BMJ. 2010;340:b5606.

29. Ripatti S, Tikkanen E, Orho-Melander M, et al. A multi-locus genetic risk score for coronary heart disease: case-control and prospective cohort analyses. Lancet. 2010;376:1393-400.

30. Paynter NP, Chasman DI, Pare G, et al. Association between a literature-based genetic risk score and cardiovascular events in women. JAMA. 2010;303: 631-7.

31. Qi L, Ma J, Qi Q, et al. Genetic risk score and risk of myocardial infarction in Hispanics. Circulation. 2011;123:374-80.

32. Thanassoulis G, Peloso GM, Pencina MJ, et al. A genetic risk score is associated with incident cardiovascular disease and coronary artery calcium—the Framingham Heart Study. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2012;5:113-21.

33. Farooq V, Brugaletta S, Serruys PW. Utilizing risk scores in determining the optimal revas-cularization strategy for complex coronary artery disease. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2011;13:415-23.

34. Farooq V, Brugaletta S, Serruys PW. Contemporary and evolving risk scoring algorithms for percu-taneous coronary intervention. Heart. 2011;97: 1902-13.

35. Capodanno D, Tamburino C. Integrating the Synergy between percutaneous coronary inter-vention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score into practice: use, pitfalls, and new directions. Am Heart J. 2011;161:462-70.

36. de Mulder M, Gitt A, van Domburg R, etal. EuroHeart score for the evaluation of in- hospital mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur HeartJ. 2011;32:1398-408.

37. Garg S, Sarno G, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. A new tool for the risk stratification of patients with complex coronary artery disease. The clinical SYNTAX score. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:317-26.

38. Capodanno D, Caggegi A, Miano M, et al. Global risk classification and clinical SYNTAX (synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXUS and cardiac surgery) score in patients undergoing percutaneous or surgical left main revascularisation. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2011;4: 287-97.

39. Chen SL, Chen JP, Mintz G, et al. Comparison between the NERS (New Risk Stratification) score and the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score in outcome prediction for un-protected left main stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2010;3:632-41.

40. Chakravarty T, Buch MH, Naik H, et al. Predictive accuracy of SYNTAX score for predicting long-term outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery revascularization. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107: 360-6.

41. Peterson ED, Dai D, DeLong ER, et al. Contem-porary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:

42. Singh M, Holmes DR, Lennon RJ, et al. Develop-ment and validation of risk adjustment models for long-term mortality and myocardial infarction following percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:423-30.

43. Stolker JM, Kennedy KF, Lindsey JB, et al. Predicting restenosis of drug-eluting stents placed in real-world clinical practice. Derivation and validation of a risk model from the EVENT Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interven 2010;3:327-34.