Publication:
The 2013 ACC/AHA 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk index is better than SCORE and QRisk II in rheumatoid arthritis: is it enough?

dc.contributor.authorSÜNBÜL, MURAT
dc.contributor.authorTİGEN, MUSTAFA KÜRŞAT
dc.contributor.authorDİRESKENELİ, RAFİ HANER
dc.contributor.authorsOzen, Gulsen; Sunbul, Murat; Atagunduz, Pamir; Direskeneli, Haner; Tigen, Kursat; Inanc, Nevsun
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-14T08:14:32Z
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-10T17:33:15Z
dc.date.available2022-03-14T08:14:32Z
dc.date.issued2015-10-15
dc.description.abstractObjective. To determine the ability of the new American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk algorithm in detecting high cardiovascular (CV) risk, RA patients identified by carotid ultrasonography (US) were compared with Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) and QRisk II algorithms. Methods. SCORE, QRisk II, 2013 ACC/AHA 10-year ASCVD risk and EULAR recommended modified versions were calculated in 216 RA patients. In sonographic evaluation, carotid intima-media thickness >0.90 mm and/or carotid plaques were used as the gold standard test for subclinical atherosclerosis and high CV risk (US+). Results. Eleven (5.1%), 15 (6.9%) and 44 (20.4%) patients were defined as having high CV risk according to SCORE, QRisk II and ACC/AHA 10-year ASCVD risk, respectively. Fifty-two (24.1%) patients were US+ and of those, 8 (15.4%), 7 (13.5%) and 23 (44.2%) patients were classified as high CV risk according to SCORE, QRisk II and ACC/AHA 10-year ASCVD risk, respectively. The ACC/AHA 10-year ASCVD risk index better identified US+ patients than SCORE and QRisk II (P < 0.0001). With EULAR modification, reclassification from moderate to high risk occurred only in two, five and seven patients according to SCORE, QRisk II and ACC/AHA 10-year ASCVD risk, respectively. Conclusion. The 2013 ACC/AHA 10-year ASCVD risk estimator was better than the SCORE and QRisk II indices in RA, but still failed to identify 55% of high risk patients. Furthermore adjustment of threshold and EULAR modification did not work well.
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/rheumatology/kev363
dc.identifier.eissn1462-0332
dc.identifier.issn1462-0324
dc.identifier.pubmed26472565
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11424/241253
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000371557800017
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherOXFORD UNIV PRESS
dc.relation.ispartofRHEUMATOLOGY
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectcardiovascular risk estimation
dc.subjectSCORE
dc.subjectQRisk II
dc.subjectACC/AHA 10-year ASCVD
dc.subjectcarotid intima-media thickness
dc.subjectINTIMA-MEDIA THICKNESS
dc.subjectNECROSIS-FACTOR INHIBITORS
dc.subjectMYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION
dc.subjectCAROTID ULTRASOUND
dc.subjectAMERICAN-COLLEGE
dc.subjectMORTALITY
dc.subjectMETAANALYSIS
dc.subjectSTRATIFICATION
dc.subjectCLASSIFICATION
dc.subjectPOPULATION
dc.titleThe 2013 ACC/AHA 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk index is better than SCORE and QRisk II in rheumatoid arthritis: is it enough?
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage522
oaire.citation.issue3
oaire.citation.startPage513
oaire.citation.titleRHEUMATOLOGY
oaire.citation.volume55

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
file.pdf
Size:
223.83 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format