Evidence for Global CHD Risk Calculation: Risk Assessment Alone Does Not Change Outcomes
Am Fam Physician. 2010 Aug 1;82(3):236.
To prevent heart attack, stroke, or death, the American Heart Association recommends estimating patients’ absolute risk of having a coronary heart disease (CHD) event in 10 years.1 As Drs. Viera and Sheridan point out in this issue of American Family Physician,2 the use of global risk estimates is based on consensus opinion (Strength of Recommendation = C3). The article also suggests that calculators prevent harm from daily aspirin use in low-risk patients, in whom the number of bleeding events might exceed the number of CHD events that are prevented. However, no studies have evaluated the effect of global CHD risk calculation on daily aspirin use. Before physicians adopt routine risk calculation, we should use the evidence to determine the best use of our patients’ time and resources.
Determining a patient’s global CHD risk may improve appropriate prescribing. A 2003 study of six subspecialists in diabetes and 323 patients found a nonsignificant trend toward increased overall prescribing of cardiovascular drugs.4 In a high-risk subset of these patients, physicians prescribed significantly more blood pressure– and lipid-lowering medications when the global CHD risk score was known.4 This is a promising, but selective, example of behavior change among physicians. However, changing physicians’ intent to prescribe does not guarantee improved outcomes. For example, a study of patients with hypertension found that physicians who were given charts to calculate CHD risk prescribed more antihypertensive drugs (resulting in a reduction of 4.6 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure); however, the overall risk of cardiac events did not change.5 Moreover, physicians who had a risk chart and a computer-based risk calculator did no better than those without a risk tool in achieving absolute risk reduction or blood pressure control. The study concluded that more evaluation of CHD risk calculators was needed.5 No studies have shown that risk calculation improves patient compliance with treatment.
Identifying risk and doing something about it are two distinct entities. A systematic review of global CHD risk calculation suggested that it is the quality of educational interventions that drives improvements in risk and treatment compliance.6,7 In other words, assessing risk without making efforts to motivate patients misses the mark. If physicians present only risk, patients hear only ultimatums, and they resist.
Like an automobile driver who sees an electronic road sign telling him that he is speeding, patients may or may not hit the brakes on smoking or other behaviors that increase their risk of CHD. Assuming that quantification of risk automatically changes patients’ behavior is a slippery slope toward unnecessary testing. Expensive testing of biomarkers such as C-reactive protein level and coronary calcium score8 is often justified by improving risk estimation, but lacks evidence of improved outcomes. A good example of the low yield of sophisticated risk identification is a study of patients with diabetes in whom CHD was diagnosed using nuclear stress imaging.9 Patients who were screened did not have significantly fewer cardiac events compared with those who were not screened. The fact that no studies show that CHD risk calculation alone changes outcomes suggests that the patient-physician conversation matters more. Although I am optimistic that future research will develop cost-effective strategies and will determine which patients benefit from risk calculation, none of the current evidence reaches that level.
REFERENCESshow all references
1. Redberg RF, Benjamin EJ, Bittner V, et al. ACCF/AHA 2009 performance measures for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults. Circulation. 2009;120(13):1296–1336....
2. Viera AJ, Sheridan SL. Global risk of coronary heart disease: assessment and application. Am Fam Physician. 2010;82(3):265–274.
3. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17(1):59–67.
4. Hall LM, Jung RT, Leese GP. Controlled trial of effect of documented cardiovascular risk scores on prescribing. BMJ. 2003;326(7383):251–252.
5. Montgomery AA, Fahey T, Peters TJ, MacIntosh C, Sharp DJ. Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care. BMJ. 2000;320(7236):686–690.
6. Sheridan SL, Viera AJ, Krantz MJ, et al. The effect of giving global coronary risk information to adults. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(3):230–239.
7. Ahmad T, Mora S. Providing patients with global cardiovascular risk information: is knowledge power? Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(3):227–228.
8. Greenland P, Bonow RO, Brundage BH, et al. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain. Circulation. 2007;115(3):402–426.
9. Young LH, Wackers FJ, Chyun DA, et al.; DIAD Investigators. Cardiac outcomes after screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2009;301(15):1547–1555.
Copyright © 2010 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions