COSEHC global vascular risk management quality improvement program: Rationale and design

4Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The Consortium for Southeastern Hypertension Control (COSEHC) promotes global risk factor management in patients with metabolic syndrome. The COSEHC Global Vascular Risk Management Study (GVRM) intends to quantify these efforts on long-term patient outcomes. The objectives of this study were to present baseline demographics of patients enrolled in the GVRM, calculate a modified COSEHC risk score using 11 variables (COSEHC-11), and compare it with the original COSEHC-17 and Framingham, Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM), and Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk scores. Methods: Deidentified electronic medical records of enrolled patients were used to calculate the risk scores. The ability of the COSEHC-11 score to predict the COSEHC-17 score was assessed by regression analysis. Raw risk scores were converted to probability estimates of fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) and compared with predicted risks from other algorithms. Results: Of the 177,404 patients enrolled, 43,676 had data for all 11 variables. The COSEHC-11 score (mean ± standard deviation) of these 43,676 patients was 31.75 ± 11.66, implying a five-year fatal CHD risk of 1.4%. The COSEHC-11 score was highly predictive of the COSEHC-17 score (R 2 = 0.93; P < 0.0001) and correlated well with the SCORE algorithm. Conclusion: The COSEHC-11 risk score is statistically similar to the COSEHC-17 risk score and should be a viable tool for evaluating its ability to predict five-year cardiovascular mortality in the coming years. © 2010 Ferrario et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ferrario, C. M., Moore, M. A., Bestermann, W., Colby, C., Exuzides, A., Simmons, D., & Panjabi, S. (2010). COSEHC global vascular risk management quality improvement program: Rationale and design. Vascular Health and Risk Management, 6(1), 1135–1145. https://doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S13746

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free