Search Something?

If you have any key terms you can search below or enter what you are looking for!

Cardiovascular Health Measurement Scales

Welcome to Cardiovascular Health Measurement Scales Wiki

Framingham – ATP (Adult Treatment Panel) III


Background info: Framingham-ATP III
  • ATP III is the recommended scale for the control and treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of US.
  • ATP III constitute a revised Framingham scale derived from the Framingham-Wilson to measure hard CHD (total CHD without angina pectoris) rather than the original total CHD.
1) End-points measured
  • 10 year risk of hard coronary heart disease (CHD)
  • Hard CHD is defined to include:
    • Myocardial infarction
    • Coronary death
2) Profile of original population at baseline
  • Framingham, USA
  • Age: 30 to 79
  • Baseline free of CHD, intermittent claudication, diabetes
3) Validation (the following prospective studies excludes cohort with history of CVD and diabetes at baseline)
AuthorYearEthnicityAge groupFollow upCalibration ^Discrimination ^^Conclusion
Aktas (1)2004US (Cleveland Clinic)50-758 years0.57SCORE was superior to Framingham
Berry (2)2007US18-3930 yearsNeither method classified individuals under 30 as high risk despite substantial risk factor burden
Cook (3)2012 US (women only) 50-79  9.9 years (median)Calibration plots used0.765 (Reynolds)Reynolds Risk Score was better calibrated than the Framingham-based models.
0.757 (Framingham ATP-III)
Cooper (4)2005UK (NPHS-II, men only)50-6410 years2.130.62The algorithm based on NPHS-II data performs similarly to those for PROCAM and Framingham with respect to discrimination although no score had a high sensitivity.
D'Agostino (5)2001US (black, white, Japanese, Hispanic, native)50.63-0.83Sex-specific Framingham CHD prediction functions perform well among whites and blacks and can be applied to other ethnic groups after recalibration for differing prevalences of risk factors and underlying rates of CHD events.
Koller (6)2007Netherlands>55>10 years1.380.63 (men), 0.73 (women)Overestimate in <75 yrs men and underestimate in >75 yrs men and women
Marruqat (7)2003Spain10 years2.7 (men), 2.1 (women)Estimates more than doubled the actual risk of coronary disease
Marrugat (8)2007Spain35-745 years0.68 (men), 0.73 (women)Adapted Framingham-REGICOR predict more accurately
Note:
  • Calibration is represented by the ratio of predicted value over observed value (e.g. a value closer to 1 indicates perfect calibration): for more information, please refer to Key Terms and Definitions
  • Discrimination is represented by the area under receiver operating curve (e.g. a value closer to 1 indicates better discrimination): for more information, please refer to Key Terms and Definitions
  • Area left blank means the information is either unavailable in the paper or the full paper is not accessible to the authors of this Wiki.
4) Length of follow up
  • maximum of 12 years
5) Risk factors involved
  • Non-modifiable risk factors
    • Age
  • Modifiable risk factors
    • Total Cholesterol
    • HDL
    • Systolic blood pressure
    • Treatment for hypertension
    • Cigarette smoking
References

Primary publication:

Adult Treatment Panel III. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation 2002; 106: 3143-3421. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/25/3143.full.pdf


1. Aktas MK, Ozduran V, Pothier CE, et al. Global risk scores and exercise testing for predicting all-cause mortality in a preventive medicine program. JAMA. 2004;292(12):1462-1468.

2. Berry JD, Lloyd-Jones DM, Garside DB, Greenland P. Framingham risk score and prediction of coronary heart disease death in young men. American Heart Journal. 2007;154(1):80-86.

3. Cook NR, Paynter NP, Eaton CB, et al. Comparison of the Framingham and Reynolds Risk Scores for global cardiovascular risk prediction in the multi-ethnic women’s health initiative. Circulation. 2012;125:1746-1756.

4. Cooper JA, Miller GJ, Humphries SE. A comparison of the PROCAM and Framingham point-scoring systems for estimation of individual risk of coronary heart disease in the Second Northwick Park Heart Study. Atherosclerosis. 2005;181(1):93-100.

5. D’Agostino RB, Sr., Grundy S, Sullivan LM, Wilson P, Group CHDRP. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA. 2001;286(2):180-187.

6. Koller MT, Steyerberg EW, Wolbers M, et al. Validity of the Framingham point scores in the elderly: results from the Rotterdam study. American Heart Journal. 2007;154(1):87-93.

7. Marrugat J, D’Agostino R, Sullivan L, et al. An adaptation of the Framingham coronary heart disease risk function to European Mediterranean areas. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 01 Aug 2003;57(8):634-638.

8. Marrugat J, Subirana I, Comin E, et al. Validity of an adaptation of the Framingham cardiovascular risk function: the VERIFICA Study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2007;61(1):40-47.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content