This would not have caught mine at all. The only thing that would have caught mine is if my Dads' doctor had told him to have any children tested for carotid blockage after he was diagnosed with 80% blockage.
5 indicators predict CV risk in healthy adults without blood test
Valentin Fuster
“In 2010, the American Heart Association proposed a new paradigm by shifting the classic focus on reducing the prevalence of CVD to a national goal of improving CV health in the population by measuring the Ideal Cardiovascular Health Score (ICHS),” Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief of The Mount Sinai Hospital, and colleagues wrote. “The ICHS metrics focus on a number of lifestyle factors (smoking, body weight, physical activity and diet) and three established risk factors (blood cholesterol, blood glucose and blood pressure).”
The researchers compared the ICHS, which requires a blood test, with the Fuster-BEWAT score (FBS), which includes BP, exercise, weight, alimentation and tobacco use, and does not require laboratory testing.
Ideal ICHS (OR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31-0.55) and ideal FBS (OR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.66) were associated with lower risk for having atherosclerotic plaques compared with those with poor ICHS and FBS. Ideal ICHS and FBS were also associated with lower risk for coronary artery calcification score of 1 or more (ICHS OR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.6; FBS OR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.74), for higher number of affected territories (ICHS OR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.41; FBS OR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31-0.5) and for higher CAC level (ICHS OR = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.28-0.58; FBS OR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.72), Fuster and colleagues wrote.
When determining presence of plaques, ICHS and FBS had similar levels of discriminating accuracy (C-statistic for ICHS, 0.694; 95% CI, 0.678-0.711; C-statistic for FBS, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.676-0.709). The same was true for determining levels of CAC score greater than 1 (C-statistic for ICHS, 0.782; 95% CI, 0.765-0.8; C-statistic for FBS, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.762-0.798).
“Because the FBS does not require laboratory analyses to be derived and given the comparable predictive value of both scores, the FBS may be considered a practical and affordable option with which to foster primary CV prevention in settings where easy laboratory data are not available,” the researchers wrote. “This may not be considered an advantage in high-resource environments, where routine screening for risk factors by laboratory analysis are recommended, but may be particularly relevant in low-resource areas, such as in developing countries, where the burden of CVD is growing faster. It also may be used for educational purposes in nonmedical environments (ie, schools) and for personal self-monitoring as a tool to improve self-CV care.” − by Cassie Homer
No comments:
Post a Comment