An exploratory analysis of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease risk calculations in veterans with spinal cord injury and disorders.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Khin N Chan, Jonathan Myers, David Huberman, Doug Ota, Jeffrey Jaramillo, B Jenny Kiratli
{"title":"An exploratory analysis of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease risk calculations in veterans with spinal cord injury and disorders.","authors":"Khin N Chan, Jonathan Myers, David Huberman, Doug Ota, Jeffrey Jaramillo, B Jenny Kiratli","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2024.2375888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>(1) To describe and compare cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease risk scores using three existing risk calculators: Framingham Risk Score (FRS), American Heart Association (AHA) and Metabolic Syndrome Severity Score (MSSS) in Veterans with spinal cord injury and disorders (SCI/D); (2) To examine level of agreement between risk scores derived from three different risk scoring systems; and (3) To investigate whether the agreement among these methods is different for Veterans with Tetraplegia versus Paraplegia.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective chart review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic medical records of 194 Veterans with SCI/D who were seen at the VAPAHCS SCI/D Center between August 2004 and June 2022 were reviewed. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scores (FRS and AHA) along with a Metabolic Syndrome Severity Score (MSSS) were computed using web-based calculators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Moderate agreement between CVD risk scores (FRS and AHA) was observed; however, the agreement was poor between MSSS and both AHA and FRS. No differences were observed between the paraplegia and tetraplegia cohorts. From the AHA risk score, more than half the study population was found to be at high risk while less than half was considered high risk from the FRS and MSSS scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given the moderate association between AHA and FRS scores along with considerable variation in risk predictors, CVD risk prediction assessment tools should be interpreted cautiously in the SCI population. SCI-related clinical biomarkers and other clinically relevant risk factors should be taken into consideration to optimize risk estimation in persons with SCI/D.</p>","PeriodicalId":50044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2024.2375888","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: (1) To describe and compare cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease risk scores using three existing risk calculators: Framingham Risk Score (FRS), American Heart Association (AHA) and Metabolic Syndrome Severity Score (MSSS) in Veterans with spinal cord injury and disorders (SCI/D); (2) To examine level of agreement between risk scores derived from three different risk scoring systems; and (3) To investigate whether the agreement among these methods is different for Veterans with Tetraplegia versus Paraplegia.

Design: Retrospective chart review.

Methods: Electronic medical records of 194 Veterans with SCI/D who were seen at the VAPAHCS SCI/D Center between August 2004 and June 2022 were reviewed. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scores (FRS and AHA) along with a Metabolic Syndrome Severity Score (MSSS) were computed using web-based calculators.

Results: Moderate agreement between CVD risk scores (FRS and AHA) was observed; however, the agreement was poor between MSSS and both AHA and FRS. No differences were observed between the paraplegia and tetraplegia cohorts. From the AHA risk score, more than half the study population was found to be at high risk while less than half was considered high risk from the FRS and MSSS scores.

Conclusions: Given the moderate association between AHA and FRS scores along with considerable variation in risk predictors, CVD risk prediction assessment tools should be interpreted cautiously in the SCI population. SCI-related clinical biomarkers and other clinically relevant risk factors should be taken into consideration to optimize risk estimation in persons with SCI/D.

对脊髓损伤和失调退伍军人代谢综合征和心血管疾病风险计算的探索性分析。
目标:(1) 使用现有的三种风险计算器描述和比较心血管和心脏代谢疾病风险评分:(2)研究三种不同风险评分系统得出的风险评分之间的一致程度;(3)研究四肢瘫痪退伍军人与截瘫退伍军人在这些方法之间的一致程度是否不同:设计:回顾性病历审查:方法:对 2004 年 8 月至 2022 年 6 月期间在 VAPAHCS SCI/D 中心就诊的 194 名 SCI/D 退伍军人的电子病历进行回顾。使用网络计算器计算心血管疾病(CVD)风险评分(FRS 和 AHA)以及代谢综合征严重程度评分(MSSS):观察到心血管疾病风险评分(FRS 和 AHA)之间有一定程度的一致性;但 MSSS 与 AHA 和 FRS 之间的一致性较差。截瘫队列和四肢瘫痪队列之间没有发现差异。从 AHA 风险评分来看,半数以上的研究对象属于高风险人群,而从 FRS 和 MSSS 评分来看,只有不到半数的研究对象属于高风险人群:结论:鉴于 AHA 和 FRS 评分之间的中度关联以及风险预测因素的巨大差异,在 SCI 群体中应谨慎解释心血管疾病风险预测评估工具。应考虑与 SCI 相关的临床生物标志物和其他临床相关风险因素,以优化 SCI/D 患者的风险评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: For more than three decades, The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine has reflected the evolution of the field of spinal cord medicine. From its inception as a newsletter for physicians striving to provide the best of care, JSCM has matured into an international journal that serves professionals from all disciplines—medicine, nursing, therapy, engineering, psychology and social work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信