Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2
Objective Cardiovascular risk estimation is an essential step to reduce the onset of adverse cardiovascular events. For this purpose, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk chart method was used in Europe. In 2021, the SCORE2 algorithm was released, bringing changes in the calculation...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022-08-01
|
| Series: | Open Heart |
| Online Access: | https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/2/e002087.full |
| _version_ | 1797781806880129024 |
|---|---|
| author | Peter Andreka Orsolya Csenteri Zoltán Jancsó Gergő József Szöllösi Péter Vajer |
| author_facet | Peter Andreka Orsolya Csenteri Zoltán Jancsó Gergő József Szöllösi Péter Vajer |
| author_sort | Peter Andreka |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective Cardiovascular risk estimation is an essential step to reduce the onset of adverse cardiovascular events. For this purpose, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk chart method was used in Europe. In 2021, the SCORE2 algorithm was released, bringing changes in the calculation methodology. This study assessed and compared the level of cardiovascular risk in a population aged 40–65 years using the SCORE and SCORE2 methodologies.Methods This cross-sectional study included a total of 85 802 patients in Hungary. Cardiovascular risk levels were determined using the SCORE and SCORE2 risk estimation methods.Results Using SCORE, 97.7% of men aged 40–50 years were classified as low–moderate risk, which decreased to 32.4% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 100% of women aged 40–50 years were classified as low–moderate risk, compared with 75.6% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 36.8% of men aged 50–65 years were classified as high risk and 14.8% as very high risk, and 5.4% of women aged 50–65 years were classified as high risk and 0.5% as very high risk. In this age group, using SCORE2, 50% of men were classified as high risk and 25.8% as very high risk, and 38.8% of women were classified as high risk and 11.9% as very high risk.Conclusions When the SCORE2 method was used instead of SCORE 43.91% of the whole population were classified with a higher level of risk, which represents a radical increase in the number of patients with high or very high cardiovascular risk. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T00:02:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b1286a3b3a14427ab1c46f88aed6572e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2053-3624 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T00:02:11Z |
| publishDate | 2022-08-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Open Heart |
| spelling | doaj.art-b1286a3b3a14427ab1c46f88aed6572e2023-07-13T09:30:06ZengBMJ Publishing GroupOpen Heart2053-36242022-08-019210.1136/openhrt-2022-002087Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2Peter Andreka0Orsolya Csenteri1Zoltán Jancsó2Gergő József Szöllösi3Péter Vajer4Gottsegen György Országos Kardiológiai Intézet, Budapest, HungaryGottsegen György Országos Kardiológiai Intézet, Budapest, HungaryGottsegen György Országos Kardiológiai Intézet, Budapest, HungaryGottsegen György Országos Kardiológiai Intézet, Budapest, HungaryGottsegen György Országos Kardiológiai Intézet, Budapest, HungaryObjective Cardiovascular risk estimation is an essential step to reduce the onset of adverse cardiovascular events. For this purpose, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk chart method was used in Europe. In 2021, the SCORE2 algorithm was released, bringing changes in the calculation methodology. This study assessed and compared the level of cardiovascular risk in a population aged 40–65 years using the SCORE and SCORE2 methodologies.Methods This cross-sectional study included a total of 85 802 patients in Hungary. Cardiovascular risk levels were determined using the SCORE and SCORE2 risk estimation methods.Results Using SCORE, 97.7% of men aged 40–50 years were classified as low–moderate risk, which decreased to 32.4% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 100% of women aged 40–50 years were classified as low–moderate risk, compared with 75.6% using SCORE2. Using SCORE, 36.8% of men aged 50–65 years were classified as high risk and 14.8% as very high risk, and 5.4% of women aged 50–65 years were classified as high risk and 0.5% as very high risk. In this age group, using SCORE2, 50% of men were classified as high risk and 25.8% as very high risk, and 38.8% of women were classified as high risk and 11.9% as very high risk.Conclusions When the SCORE2 method was used instead of SCORE 43.91% of the whole population were classified with a higher level of risk, which represents a radical increase in the number of patients with high or very high cardiovascular risk.https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/2/e002087.full |
| spellingShingle | Peter Andreka Orsolya Csenteri Zoltán Jancsó Gergő József Szöllösi Péter Vajer Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 Open Heart |
| title | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
| title_full | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
| title_fullStr | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
| title_short | Differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using SCORE and SCORE2 |
| title_sort | differences of cardiovascular risk assessment in clinical practice using score and score2 |
| url | https://openheart.bmj.com/content/9/2/e002087.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT peterandreka differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 AT orsolyacsenteri differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 AT zoltanjancso differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 AT gergojozsefszollosi differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 AT petervajer differencesofcardiovascularriskassessmentinclinicalpracticeusingscoreandscore2 |