Comparative accuracy of different risk scores in assessing cardiovascular risk in Indians: A study in patients with first myocardial infarction

BackgroundAlthough a number of risk assessment models are available for estimating 10-year risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients requiring primary prevention of CV disease, the predictive accuracy of the contemporary risk models has not been adequately evaluated in Indians.Methods149 patients [mean age 59.4 ± 10.6 years; 123 (82.6%) males] without prior CV disease and presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) were included. The four clinically most relevant risk assessment models [Framingham Risk score (RiskFRS), World Health Organization risk prediction charts (RiskWHO), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled cohort equations (RiskACC/AHA) and the 3rd Joint British Societies' risk calculator (RiskJBS)] were applied to estimate what would have been their predicted 10-year risk of CV events if they had presented just prior to suffering the acute MI.ResultsRiskWHO provided the lowest risk estimates with 86.6% patients estimated to be having <20% 10-year risk. In comparison, RiskFRS and RiskACC/AHA returned higher risk estimates (61.7% and 69.8% with risk <20%, respectively; p values <0.001 for comparison with RiskWHO). However, the RiskJBS identified the highest proportion of the patients as being at high-risk (only 44.1% at <20% risk, p values 0 < 0.01 for comparison with all the other 3 risk scores).ConclusionsThis is the first study to show that in Indian patients presenting with acute MI, RiskJBS is likely to identify the largest proportion of the patients as at 'high-risk' as compared to RiskWHO, RiskFRS and RiskACC/AHA. However, large-scale prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.