Comparison of the Bowling Green Study Risk Factor

Presented: IAS Boston 2009; NLA Chicago 2010; Fas Hamburg 2010

Introduction

Atherothrombotic Disease (ATD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the western world and in the not too distant future in the entire world. (1) ATD is defined as atherosclerotic disease, with emphasis on the thrombosis that so often precipitates the acute clinical event, such as acute myocardial infarction, acute cerebral infarction, unstable angina pectoris, transient ischmic attacks, abdominal aortic aneurysm, etc.

Since not all of a physician’s patients will die of ATD, the ability of the physician to protect his/her ATD-prone patient depends directly upon the physician’s ability to predict the population at risk of ATD. It is clear that the better one can predict the at-risk population, the better the attending physician can protect his/her at-risk patients from ATD.

The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) is the most commonly used risk assessment tool in the USA. (2) Unfortunately, many-perhaps most- American physicians do not calculate FRS values for their patients. (3, 4) The reasons for this failure are probably many, among these reasons may be the time necessary for physicians unfamiliar with the calculations to do those calculations, lack of confidence in the FRS, and disagreement with the scoring process in the FRS.

The purpose of this article is to compare the ability of the FRS to predict the population at risk of ATD with the ability of a multifactoral ATD risk factor predictive graph that is termed the Bowling Green Study (BGS) Graph.

Click here to download file.

Comments are closed.



site by Sea Lion Studio
bowlinggreenstudy.org is powered by WordPress :: Theme by Trilobita.co.uk