Comparison of SCORE, SCORE2 and Framingham Risk Score-Based Methods for Vascular Age Calculation

TL;DR

This study compares three methods for calculating vascular age and finds that they produce different results, especially in patients with hypertension.

Contribution

The study evaluates and compares vascular age calculation methods using SCORE, SCORE2, and FRS in a population with and without hypertension.

Findings

Vascular ages calculated using SCORE2 and FRS were higher than chronological age in the total population.

FRS vascular age was higher than SCORE2 vascular age in both hypertensive and white-coat hypertension patients.

Healthy patients showed no difference between chronological and vascular age.

Abstract

Background/objectives: Calculation of vascular age can help patients to understand the importance of adherence to a healthy lifestyle and medications. There are different methods of calculating vascular age, but different methods can provide different vascular age results. Our aim was to evaluate vascular age based on the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE 2) and Framingham Risk Score (FRS) methods. Methods: Subjects between the ages of 40–65 were involved. Vascular ages were defined based on SCORE, SCORE2 and FRS methods according to data from the literature. Results: In total, 141 patients were involved in the study; among them 94 had hypertension (HT) and 23 had white-coat hypertension. In the total population, SCORE2 and FRS vascular ages were higher compared to chronological age. SCORE2 and FRS vascular ages were higher than SCORE vascular age, and FRS vascular age was higher compared to SCORE2 as well. These tendencies were the same in the case of hypertensive patients and in patients with white-coat hypertension. In healthy patients, there were no differences between chronological age and vascular age. Conclusions: The differences found between the calculated vascular ages and the proportion of subjects with elevated vascular age warrant further comparison of different vascular age calculation methods.

Figures