Cardiovascular risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: traditional scales versus carotid ultrasound
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of stratifying high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk inpatients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), modifiedSystematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (mSCORE), 2013 American College of Cardiology/AmericanHeart Association...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | Perú |
| Institución: | Universidad de San Martín de Porres |
| Repositorio: | Horizonte médico |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:horizontemedico.usmp.edu.pe:article/3066 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://horizontemedico.usmp.edu.pe/index.php/horizontemed/article/view/3066 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Riesgo Cardiovascular Artritis Reumatoide Escalas Ultrasonido Carotídeo Heart Disease Risk Factors Arthritis, Rheumatoid Weights and Measures Ultrasonography, Carotid Arteries |
| Sumario: | Objective: To compare the effectiveness of stratifying high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk inpatients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), modifiedSystematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (mSCORE), 2013 American College of Cardiology/AmericanHeart Association (2013 ACC/AHA) guidelines and QResearch Risk Estimator version 3 (QRISK3),with carotid ultrasound (CUS) serving as the gold standard for detecting subclinical atherosclerosis.Materials and methods: A comparative, observational and cross-sectional diagnostic study was conducted in patients aged 40 to 75 years, of both sexes, with RA and without CVD, at a tertiarycare hospital in Puebla, Mexico. Patients on treatment with one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least three months were included. Patients with chronic diseases and those who did not undergo a CUS were excluded. CVD risk was assessed using the aforementioned risk scales—with results adjusted by a factor of 1.5 (as recommended by the 2015/2016 European League Against Rheumatism guidelines)—andCUS to detect subclinical atherosclerosis. Results: A total of 70 out of 110 patients with high CVD risk were enrolled in the study: six (8.6 %), nine (12.9 %), three (4.3 %) and four (5.7 %) were diagnosed using FRS, 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, QRISK3 and mSCORE, respectively. CUS detected subclinical atherosclerosis in 25 patients (35.71 %), of whom seven were classified as high CVD risk according to ACC/AHA guidelines (28 %, p = 0.006). The discriminatory power of the scales was found to be adequate(p < 0.05), with QRISK3 demonstrating the highest effectiveness (0.737, 95 % CI: 0.609-0.866); however, no significant differences were observed between the scales. Conclusions: The estimation of CVD risk in patients with RA remains suboptimal. The use of non-invasive imaging techniques provides valuable assistance in stratifying CVD risk. Although the scales demonstrated adequate discriminatory power, they were not equivalent and their correlation with subclinical atherosclerosis was low. |
|---|