![]() No significant difference was observed when comparing the predictability of the FRS, UKPDS risk engine, and SCORE risk estimation for carotid atherosclerosis and peripheral arterial disease in Korean type 2 diabetic patients.Ĭarotid Artery Thrombosis Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 Peripheral Arterial Disease Risk Assessment. When we graphed the Kernel density distribution of these three risk scores, UKPDS had a higher distribution than FRS and SCORE. However, no significant difference was detected for plaque, IMT, or ABI (P = 0.839, 0.313, and 0.113, respectively) when the AUCs of the three risk scores were compared. For ABI, the SCORE risk estimation provided the highest OR at 7.41 (3.20, 17.18). For plaque and IMT, the UKPDS risk score provided the highest OR (95% confidence interval) at 3.82 (2.36, 6.17) and at 6.21 (3.37, 11.45). The odds ratios (ORs) of all risk scores increased as the quartiles increased for plaque, IMT, and ABI. These three risk scores were compared to the areas under the curve (AUC). The subject's 10-year risk of coronary heart disease was calculated according to the FRS, UKPDS, and SCORE risk scores. Well-trained examiners measured the carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), carotid plaque, and ankle brachial index (ABI). doi: 10.1111/j.To compare the predictability of the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine, and the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) for carotid atherosclerosis and peripheral arterial disease in Korean type 2 diabetic patients.Īmong 1,275 registered type 2 diabetes patients in the health center, 621 subjects with type 2 diabetes participated in the study. Prognostic value of the Framingham cardiovascular risk equation and the UKPDS risk engine for coronary heart disease in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: results from a United Kingdom study. Guzder RN, Gatling W, Mullee MA, Mehta RL, Byrne CD. Performance of the UK prospective diabetes study risk engine and the Framingham risk equations in estimating cardiovascular disease in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort. Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, Larson MG, Massaro JM, Vasan RS (2009) Predicting the 30-year risk of cardiovascular disease. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Coronary heart disease incidence in NIDDM patients in the Helsinki Heart Study. Koskinen P, Manttari M, Manninen V, Huttunen JK, Heinonen OP, Frick MH. To enhance the prediction of CVD in patients with type 2 diabetes, this model should be updated. The discriminative ability of this model is moderate, irrespective of various subgroup analyses. We observed that the UKPDS risk engine overestimates CHD and CVD risk. Discrimination for these periods was still moderate to poor. The calibration of the UKPDS risk engine was slightly better for patients with type 2 diabetes who had been diagnosed with diabetes more than 10 years ago compared with patients diagnosed more recently, particularly for 4 and 5 year predicted CVD and CHD risks. The UKPDS risk engine showed moderate to poor discrimination for both CHD and CVD (c-statistic of 0.66 for both 5 year CHD and CVD risks), and an overestimation of the risk (224% and 112%). Discrimination was examined using the c-statistic and calibration by visually inspecting calibration plots and calculating the Hosmer-Lemeshow χ(2) statistic. Discrimination and calibration were assessed for 4, 5, 6 and 8 year risk. During a mean follow-up of 8 years, patients were followed for incidence of CHD and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The cohort included 1,622 patients with type 2 diabetes. Hence, we assessed the discrimination and calibration of the UKPDS risk engine to predict 4, 5, 6 and 8 year cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. The methods used in these validation studies were diverse, however, and sometimes insufficient. Treatment guidelines recommend the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine for predicting cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, although validation studies showed moderate performance.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |