An evaluation of the performance of SCORE Sweden 2015 in estimating cardiovascular risk: The Northern Sweden MONICA Study 1999-2014.

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models for cardiovascular death are important for providing advice on lifestyle and in decision-making regarding primary preventive drug treatment. The latest Swedish version of the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE 2015) has yet not been tested in the population. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of high and very high risk of fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) of the current population according to 2015 SCORE Sweden and to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the 2003 Swedish version of SCORE (2003 SCORE Sweden) and 2015 SCORE Sweden in a population with declining CVD mortality. METHODS: We estimated the high and very high risk group for cardiovascular death for individuals 40-65 years of age in the 2014 Northern Sweden MONICA population survey excluding subjects with known diabetes or previous CVD (n = 813). Using the 1999 MONICA survey (n = 3347) followed up for 10 years for CVD mortality, we assessed the calibration of both 2003 and 2015 SCORE Sweden. RESULTS: In 2014 2.6% of the population was considered at high or very high risk for fatal CVD, 95% were men and 76% were in the age group 60-65 years. Including subjects with a single markedly elevated risk factor, known diabetes or CVD, 12% of the population was at high or very high risk. During 10 years of follow-up of the 1999 cohort, 34 CVD deaths (24 men and 10 women) occurred. The 2003 SCORE overestimated the risk of death from CVD (ratio predicted/observed 2.3, P < 0.001) whereas the 2015 SCORE slightly overestimated the number of deaths (predicted/observed 1.3, P = 0.12). The 2015 SCORE predicted more accurately than the 2003 SCORE the number of deaths in the different risk and age categories. CONCLUSION: The 2015 SCORE Sweden more adequately than 2003 SCORE Sweden predicts the number of deaths. In 2014, the proportion of high-risk individuals is small in northern Sweden. The main use of 2015 SCORE Sweden would therefore be as an educational tool between the physician and people without diabetes or CVD in a consultation regarding cardiovascular risk.

Cost effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation in patients with brain injury.

Rehabilitation following acquired brain injury improves health outcomes, reduces disability, and improves quality of life. We assessed the cost effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation after brain injury in individuals with brain injury admitted to the Irish national tertiary specialist rehabilitation centre in 2011. Patients' score on the Disability Rating Scale (DRS) was recorded on admission and at discharge after intensive inpatient rehabilitation. Cost savings attributed to the rehabilitation programme were calculated as the difference between direct care costs on admission and discharge. Direct costs of care were calculated as the weekly cost of the care-assistant hours required to care for patients on the basis of their level of disability or daily nursing-home bed cost when this was required. Of 63 patients, complete DRS information for admission and discharge was available for 41. DRS scores, and therefore average levels of functioning, differed significantly at admission (2.3, between mildly and moderately dependent) and discharge (1.1, independent in special environments, p<0.01). Average weekly care costs fell from €629 to €242, with costs recouped within 30 months. Thus, substantial savings result from inpatient rehabilitation, and these savings could have been greater had we considered also the economic benefit of enabling patients to return to employment.

A simple multiplier to calculate the impact of HDL cholesterol on cardiovascular risk estimation using SCORE.

The 2011 ESC-EAS guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias use four separate charts to illustrate the impact of differing HDL cholesterol levels on risk of cardiovascular disease. We developed an easy way to calculate the effects of differing HDL-C levels on risk by deriving HDL and sex specific multipliers and applying these to various reference charts. Of three strategies explored, one based on a low HDL (0.8 mmol/l) reference chart was the simplest and was acceptably accurate. Such an approach simplifies risk estimation by avoiding the need for multiple charts.

Total cardiovascular disease risk assessment: a review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The high risk strategy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) requires an assessment of an individual's total CVD risk so that the most intensive risk factor management can be directed towards those at highest risk. Here we review developments in the assessment and estimation of total CVD risk. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent advances have focused on newer approaches to expressing risk, including lifetime risk and risk age; these are particularly useful in communicating risk to younger individuals. Additionally, increased emphasis has been placed on the role of body weight and abdominal obesity in CVD risk. Several recent large studies have clarified a number of issues relevant to the management of CVD risk, a matter of growing global concern. SUMMARY: Simple risk estimation systems utilizing only easily measured variables have a role in improving the accessibility and cost effectiveness of risk estimation. The addition of newer variables to risk estimation systems may be particularly useful for those at intermediate risk, in order to more correctly reclassify such individuals into appropriate risk categories.

Assessment of cardiovascular risk.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death worldwide. Usually atherosclerosis is caused by the combined effects of multiple risk factors. For this reason, most guidelines on the prevention of CVD stress the assessment of total CVD risk. The most intensive risk factor modification can then be directed towards the individuals who will derive the greatest benefit. To assist the clinician in calculating the effects of these multiple interacting risk factors, a number of risk estimation systems have been developed. This review address several issues regarding total CVD risk assessment: Why should total CVD risk be assessed? What risk estimation systems are available? How well do these systems estimate risk? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the current systems? What are the current limitations of risk estimation systems and how can they be resolved? What new developments have occurred in CVD risk estimation?

Value and limitations of existing scores for the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a review for clinicians.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the biggest causes of death worldwide. In most people, CVD is the product of a number of causal risk factors. Several seemingly modest risk factors may, in combination, result in a much higher risk than an impressively raised single factor. For this reason, risk estimation systems have been developed to assist clinicians to assess the effects of risk factor combinations in planning management strategies. In this article, the performances of the major risk estimation systems are reviewed. Most perform usably well in populations that are similar to the one used to derive the system, and in other populations if calibrated to allow for different CVD mortality rates and different risk factor distributions. The effect of adding "new" risk factors to age, sex, smoking, lipid status, and blood pressure is usually small, but may help to appropriately reclassify some of those patients who are close to a treatment threshold to a more correct "treat/do not treat" category. Risk estimation in the young and old needs more research. Quantification of the hoped-for benefits of the multiple risk estimation approach in terms of improved outcomes is still needed. But, it is likely that the widespread use of such an approach will help to address the issues of both undertreatment and overtreatment.