ObjectiveThis study aims to examine the validity of the Framingham general cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk chart in a primary care setting.DesignThis is a 10-year retrospective cohort study.SettingA primary care clinic in a teaching hospital in Malaysia.Participants967 patients’ records were randomly selected from patients who were attending follow-up in the clinic.Main outcome measuresBaseline demographic data, history of diabetes and smoking, blood pressure (BP), and serum lipids were captured from patient records in 1998. Each patient's Framingham CVD score was computed from these parameters. All atherosclerotic CVD events occurring between 1998 and 2007 were counted.ResultsIn 1998, mean age was 57 years with 33.8% men, 6.1% smokers, 43.3% diabetics and 59.7% hypertensive. Median BP was 140/80 mm Hg and total cholesterol 6.0 mmol/L (1.3). The predicted median Framingham general CVD risk score for the study population was 21.5% (IQR 1.2–30.0) while the actual CVD events that occurred in the 10 years was 13.1% (127/967). The median CVD points for men was 30.0, giving them a CVD risk of more than 30%; for women it is 18.5, a CVD risk of 21.5%. Our study found that the Framingham general CVD risk score to have moderate discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.63. It also discriminates well for Malay (AUC 0.65, p=0.01), Chinese (AUC 0.60, p=0.03), and Indians (AUC 0.65, p=0.001). There was good calibration with Hosmer-Lemeshow test χ2=3.25, p=0.78.ConclusionsTaking into account that this cohort of patients were already on treatment, the Framingham General CVD Risk Prediction Score predicts fairly accurately for men and overestimates somewhat for women. In the absence of local risk prediction charts, the Framingham general CVD risk prediction chart is a reasonable alternative for use in a multiethnic group in a primary care setting.
BackgroundThe Pooled Cohort Risk Equation was introduced by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) 2013 in their Blood Cholesterol Guideline to estimate the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. However, absence of Asian ethnicity in the contemporary cohorts and limited studies to examine the use of the risk score limit the applicability of the equation in an Asian population. This study examines the validity of the pooled cohort risk score in a primary care setting and compares the cardiovascular risk using both the pooled cohort risk score and the Framingham General Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) risk score.MethodsThis is a 10-year retrospective cohort study of randomly selected patients aged 40–79 years. Baseline demographic data, co-morbidities and cardiovascular (CV) risk parameters were captured from patient records in 1998. Pooled cohort risk score and Framingham General CVD risk score for each patient were computed. All ASCVD events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease (CHD) death, fatal and nonfatal stroke) occurring from 1998–2007 were recorded.ResultsA total of 922 patients were studied. In 1998, mean age was 57.5 ± 8.8 years with 66.7% female. There were 47% diabetic patients and 59.9% patients receiving anti-hypertensive treatment. More than 98% of patients with pooled cohort risk score ≥7.5% had FRS >10%. A total of 45 CVD events occurred, 22 (7.2%) in males and 23 (3.7%) in females. The median pooled cohort risk score for the population was 10.1 (IQR 4.7-20.6) while the actual ASCVD events that occurred was 4.9% (45/922). Our study showed moderate discrimination with AUC of 0.63. There was good calibration with Hosmer-Lemeshow test χ2 = 12.6, P = 0.12.ConclusionsThe pooled cohort risk score appears to overestimate CV risk but this apparent over-prediction could be a result of treatment. In the absence of a validated score in an untreated population, the pooled cohort risk score appears to be appropriate for use in a primary care setting.
Background mHealth apps potentially improve health care delivery and patient outcomes, but the uptake of mHealth in primary care is challenging, especially in low–middle-income countries. Objective To measure factors associated with mHealth adoption among primary care physicians (PCPs) in Malaysia. Methods A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted among PCPs. The usage of mHealth apps by the PCPs has divided into the use of mHealth apps to support PCPs’ clinical work and recommendation of mHealth apps for patient’s use. Factors associated with mHealth adoption were analysed using multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 217 PCPs in the study, 77.0% used mHealth apps frequently for medical references, 78.3% medical calculation and 30.9% interacting with electronic health records (EHRs). Only 22.1% of PCPs frequently recommended mHealth apps to patients for tracking health information, 22.1% patient education and 14.3% use as a medical device. Performance expectancy and facilitating conditions were associated with mHealth use for medical references. Family medicine trainees, working in a government practice and performance expectancy were the facilitators for the use of mHealth apps for medical calculation. Internet connectivity, performance expectancy and use by colleagues were associated with the use of mHealth with EHR. Performance expectancy was associated with mHealth apps’ recommendation to patients to track health information and provide patient education. Conclusions PCPs often used mHealth apps to support their clinical work but seldom recommended mHealth apps to their patients. Training for PCPs is needed on the appraisal and knowledge of the mHealth apps for patient use.
BackgroundVisit‐to‐visit variability of systolic blood pressure (SBP) has been shown to contribute to cardiovascular events and all‐cause mortality. However, little is known about its long‐term effect on renal function. We aim to examine the relationship between visit‐to‐visit blood pressure variability (BPV) and decline in renal function in patients with hypertension and to determine the level of systolic BPV that is associated with significant renal function decline.Methods and ResultsThis is a 15‐year retrospective cohort study of 825 hypertensive patients. Blood pressure readings every 3 months were retrieved from the 15 years of clinic visits. We used SD and coefficient of variation as a measure of systolic BPV. Serum creatinine was captured and estimated glomerular filtration rate was calculated at baseline, 5, 10, and 15 years. The mean SD of SBP was 14.2±3.1 mm Hg and coefficient of variation of SBP was 10.2±2%. Mean for estimated glomerular filtration rate slope was −1.0±1.5 mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year. There was a significant relationship between BPV and slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate (SD: r=−0.16, P<0.001; coefficient of variation: r=−0.14, P<0.001, Pearson's correlation). BPV of SBP for each individual was significantly associated with slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate after adjustment for mean SBP and other confounders. The cutoff values estimated by the receiver operating characteristic curve for the onset of chronic kidney disease for SD of SBP was 13.5 mm Hg and coefficient of variation of SBP was 9.74%.ConclusionsLong‐term visit‐to‐visit variability of SBP is an independent determinant of renal deterioration in patients with hypertension. Hence, every effort should be made to reduce BPV in order to slow down the decline of renal function.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.