Cardiovascular Risk Scores in Women Undergoing Stress Myocardial Perfusion Scan and Comparison with Scan-Predicted Risk.

Abstract

Background:Death due to cardiovascular disease is a major concern in the field of noncommunicable disease. Assessment of cardiovascular risk score using Framingham score and WHO/ISH score is a noninvasive, easier method of predicting the adverse cardiovascular event in the general population.Aims and Objectives:The aim of the study was to assess the cardiovascular risk using Framingham score and WHO/ISH in women undergoing stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and comparison with scan-predicted risk.Materials and Methods:Adult females with suspected coronary artery disease referred to the department of nuclear medicine for 2 months were included in the study. Data pertaining to the risk score assessment were collected, and the risk scores were calculated. Subsequently, the patients underwent scheduled Tc-99m methoxy-isobutyl-isonitrile myocardial stress imaging, and scan-predicted risks were calculated. Then, the risk score of Framingham and WHO/ISH methods were compared with stress myocardial perfusion score using Cohen's kappa statistic.Results:The mean age of the sample was 52 years (standard deviation: 11). Framingham and WHO/ISH risk scores predicted low, intermediate, and high risk in 62.2%, 28.9%, and 8.9% and 68.9%, 22.1%, and 8.89% of the population. The two scoring methods showed moderate agreement (κ =0.59). However, the scores showed only slight and fair agreement, respectively, with risk predicted by stress MPI.Conclusion:Although the risk scores have been shown to benefit in screening general population, they may not perform well in symptomatic patients with suspected angina. Out of the two methods, WHO/ISH fares better than Framingham score in this population.