Reliability between Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Tools: A Pilot Study

ABSTRACT

Abstract Background The prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is important in clinical practice due to its high morbidity and mortality. Different guidelines have recommended the use of different cardiovascular risk assessment tools, which may have implications on therapeutic decisions. Objective To evaluate the agreement rate between the Framingham risk score (FRS) and the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) tool on CVD risk assessment in disease-free subjects. Methods Cross-sectional study with a sample of 51 subjects treated at the outpatient clinic of a university hospital in Brazil between January 2014 and January 2015. The FRS and two versions of the European SCORE (SCORE-High and SCORE-Low) were used to assess CVD risk; patients were classified as low/moderate risk (< 20% and <5%, respectively) or high risk (≥ 20% and ≥5%, respectively). The agreement rate was evaluated using kappa statistics, a test for interrater reliability that ranges from -1 to 1, and results above 0.6 represent a high agreement rate. Results The FRS classified a higher proportion of subjects as high risk for CVD (35.3% [18/51] vs. 23.5% [12/51] with the SCORE-High and 13.7% [7/51] with SCORE-Low). However, there was a high agreement rate between FRS and SCORE-High (k=0.628). The agreement between FRS and SCORE-Low was poor (k=0.352). Conclusions There was a high agreement rate between FRS and SCORE-High in cardiovascular risk assessment in the study sample. (Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2020; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)