2023CARDIOVASCULAR THERAPY AND PREVENTIONOpen access

Comparability of cardiovascular risk assessment according to the SCORE and the coronary artery calcium score (Agatston score)

A. S. Safaryan, В. А. Выгодин, Д. В. Небиеридзе, K. V. Nikonova

Open full text 8 citations

Abstract

Aim. To determine whether the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) level corresponds to the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score (Agatston score). Material and methods. The study included 212 people aged 40-65 years (mean age, 56,5±7,9 years). The number of men and women was 54 (25,5%) and 158 (74,5%), respectively. Results. According to the SCORE, the groups were distributed as follows: 62 (29,2%) — low risk, 128 (60,4%) — moderate risk, 16 (7,5%) — high risk, 6 (2,8%) — very high risk. The average SCORE level for the general group was 2,5±2,4%. According to the Agatston score, the groups were distributed as follows: minimal risk (0-10) — 142 (67%) people, low risk (11-100) — 42 (19,8%) people, moderate risk (101-400) — 17 (8%) people, high risk (≥401) — 7 (3,3%) people. Inconsistencies for all categories of cardiovascular risk were revealed between SCORE and Agatston score. Conclusion. The identified inconsistencies in the distribution of risk groups in accordance with the SCORE and Agatston score indicate that the SCORE scale is insufficiently informative. Multislice computed tomography coronary angiography with CAC calculation is additionally recommended, which will allow determining patient management and deciding on therapy. A comparative analysis of CAC score and the SCORE scale can help optimize, first of all, drug therapy for patients with hypertension and lipid metabolism disorders.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Aim. To determine whether the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) level corresponds to the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score (Agatston score). Material and methods. The study included 212 people aged 40-65 years (mean age, 56,5±7,9 years). The number of men and women was 54 (25,5%) and 158 (74,5%), respectively. Results. According to the SCORE, the groups were distributed as follows: 62 (29,2%) — low risk, 128 (60,4%) — moderate risk, 16 (7,5%) — high risk, 6 (2,8%) — very high risk. The average SCORE level for the general group was 2,5±2,4%. According to the Agatston score, the groups were distributed as follows: minimal risk (0-10) — 142 (67%) people, low risk (11-100) — 42 (19,8%) people, moderate risk (101-400) — 17 (8%) people, high risk (≥401) — 7 (3,3%) people. Inconsistencies for all categories of cardiovascular risk were revealed between SCORE and Agatston score. Conclusion. The identified inconsistencies in the distribution of risk groups in accordance with the SCORE and Agatston score indicate that the SCORE scale is insufficiently informative. Multislice computed tomography coronary angiography with CAC calculation is additionally recommended, which will allow determining patient management and deciding on therapy. A comparative analysis of CAC score and the SCORE scale can help optimize, first of all, drug therapy for patients with hypertension and lipid metabolism disorders.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Aim. To determine whether the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) level corresponds to the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score (Agatston score). Material and methods. The study included 212 people aged 40-65 years (mean age, 56,5±7,9 years). The number of men and women was 54 (25,5%) and 158 (74,5%), respectively. Results. According to the SCORE, the groups were distributed as follows: 62 (29,2%) — low risk, 128 (60,4%) — moderate risk, 16 (7,5%) — high risk, 6 (2,8%) — very high risk. The average SCORE level for the general group was 2,5±2,4%. According to the Agatston score, the groups were distributed as follows: minimal risk (0-10) — 142 (67%) people, low risk (11-100) — 42 (19,8%) people, moderate risk (101-400) — 17 (8%) people, high risk (≥401) — 7 (3,3%) people. Inconsistencies for all categories of cardiovascular risk were revealed between SCORE and Agatston score. Conclusion. The identified inconsistencies in the distribution of risk groups in accordance with the SCORE and Agatston score indicate that the SCORE scale is insufficiently informative. Multislice computed tomography coronary angiography with CAC calculation is additionally recommended, which will allow determining patient management and deciding on therapy. A comparative analysis of CAC score and the SCORE scale can help optimize, first of all, drug therapy for patients with hypertension and lipid metabolism disorders.

Key concepts: Agatston score, Medicine, Framingham Risk Score, Coronary Calcium Score, Internal medicine, Standard score, Coronary artery calcium, Coronary artery disease

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparability of cardiovascular risk assessment according to the SCORE and the coronary artery calcium score (Agatston score) — Research Paper | ScholarLens