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 – Wilson


Background info: Framingham-Wilson
  • Framingham-Wilson is a scale generated to estimate risk of total CHD in contradistinction to hard CHD (total CHD without angina pectoris) . The Framingham Heart Study used ECG to measure silent MI or angina. However, the application of ECG is often absent in other validation cohort studies, limiting the validity of these studies.
  • To illustrate the point above, “Framingham heart study found that about one quarter of all MIs went unrecognised, and about half of them were silent and detected only by ECG examinations. Unrecognised MI were more common in elderly, women and diabetes. Study addressing this particular scale without involving the use of ECG tend to under-report non-fatal MI.” – (Hense, 2003)
1) End-points measured
  • 10 year risk of total coronary heart disease (CHD)
  • Total CHD is defined to include:
    • Angina pectoris
    • Myocardial infarction
    • Coronary death
  • Note: “hard CHD” includes total CHD without angina pectoris
2) Profile of original population at baseline
  • Framingham, USA
  • Age: 30 to 74 (mean age 49)
  • Baseline free of overt CHD
  • Participant number: 2489 men and 2856 women
  • Population selected from:
    • 11th examination of the original Framingham cohort AND
    • the initial examination of the Framingham Offspring Study
3) Validation (the following prospective studies excludes cohort with history of CVD and diabetes at baseline)
AuthorYearEthnicityAge groupFollow upCalibration^Discrimination^^Conclusion
Asia pacific (1)2007Asia, Chinese, US8 years2.76 (men), 1.02 (women)0.75Overestimate in Chinese population, recalibration required
Barroso (2)2010Spain40-6510 years1.640.7Over-predict risk by 64%
Berry (3)2007US (male)18-3930 yearsNeither method classified individuals under 30 yrs as high risk despite substantial risk factor burden
Brunner (4)2010UK (Whitehall II)40-6311 years0.7Including a random blood glucose in Framingham risk profile improve risk prediction for CHD
Buitrago (5)2011Spain35-7410 years1.730.71Overestimate coronary risk by 73%
Comin (6)2007Spain35-745 yearsMore than half of coronary events occur in patients not classified as high risk
Empana (7)2003Belfast, France (PRIME)50-595 years2.35 (France), 1.34 (Belfast)0.61-0.68Function should not be used to estimate absolute CHD risk in Belfast
Greenland (8)2004USmedian 7 yearsRisk assessment by Framingham can be improved by coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS)
Jimenez-Corona (9)2009Mexican35-64median 6.2 years1.84 (men), 1.55 (women)Overestimate incident MI and CHD death risk in men
Mora (10)2005US<608.7 yearsHigh BMI contributed significantly to CHD, most notable for obese siblings with a high Framingham score
Orford (11)2002Normative ageing study30-7410 years<1 (low risk), >1 (high risk)0.6Underestimated absolute risk in low-risk group and overestimate risk in high risk group
Thomsen (12)2002Danish (Glostrup population study)49-7010 years0.75-0.77Using this Framingham risk-score on a Danish population will lead to a significant overestimation of coronary risk
Rodondi (13)2014 US (Health ABC study)70-79 8 years Underestimate by 51% (women) and 8% (men)0.577 (women), 0.583 (men)Framingham Risk Score underestimates CHD risk in older adults, particularly in women.
Suka (14)2001Japanese (male)30-595-7 years0.71Updated Framingham risk score could provide a reasonable rank ordering of CHD risk
Suka (15)2002Japanese (male)30-595-7 years0.67Incidence of CHD increased with increase in estimated risk
Uthoff (16)2010Switzerland ( with clinically overt atherosclerosis)6 years0.56Not useful in secondary prevention setting
Van der heijden (17)2009Dutch Caucasian50-7510 years0.73SCORE was the best predictor of fatal CHD events
 Van Kempen (18)2014 Dutch (Rotterdam Study) 68 (median) Max 17 years Low to intermediate risk: 17.5% observed vs. 16.6% expected0.66 Framingham CVD risk predictions perform well in the low- to intermediate risk categories in the Rotterdam Study. 
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
  • 12 years
5) Risk factors involved
  • Non-modifiable risk factors
    • Age
  • Modifiable risk factors
    • Diabetes
    • Smoking
    • JNC-V blood pressure categories (JNC: Joint National Committee)
    • NCEP total cholesterol categories (NCEP: National Cholesterol Education Programme)
    • LDL cholesterol categories
References

Primary publication:

Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97(18):1837-1847. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/97/18/1837.full


1. Asia Pacific Cohort Studies C, Barzi F, Patel A, et al. Cardiovascular risk prediction tools for populations in Asia. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2007;61(2):115-121.

2. Barroso LC, Muro EC, Herrera ND, Ochoa GF, Hueros JI, Buitrago F. Performance of the Framingham and SCORE cardiovascular risk prediction functions in a non-diabetic population of a Spanish health care centre: a validation study. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. Dec 2010;28(4):242-248.

3. 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.

4. Brunner EJ, Shipley MJ, Marmot MG, Kivimaki M, Witte DR. Do the Joint British Society (JBS2) guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease with respect to plasma glucose improve risk stratification in the general population? Prospective cohort study. Diabetic Medicine. May 2010;27(5):550-555.

5. Buitrago F, Calvo-Hueros JI, Canon-Barroso L, et al. Original and REGICOR Framingham functions in a nondiabetic population of a Spanish health care center: a validation study. Annals of Family Medicine. 2011;9(5):431-438.

6. Comin E, Solanas P, Cabezas C, et al. Estimating cardiovascular risk in Spain using different algorithms. Revista Espanola de Cardiologia. 2007;60(7):693-702.

7. Empana JP, Ducimetiere P, Arveiler D, et al. Are the Framingham and PROCAM coronary heart disease risk functions applicable to different European populations? The PRIME Study. European Heart Journal. November 2003;24(21):1903-1911.

8. Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP, Doherty TM, Detrano RC. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA. 2004;291(2):210-215.

9. Jimenez-Corona A, Lopez-Ridaura R, Williams K, Gonzalez-Villalpando ME, Simon J, Gonzalez-Villalpando C. Applicability of Framingham risk equations for studying a low-income Mexican population. Salud Publica de Mexico. 2009;51(4):298-305.

10. Mora S, Yanek LR, Moy TF, Fallin MD, Becker LC, Becker DM. Interaction of body mass index and framingham risk score in predicting incident coronary disease in families. Circulation. 2005;111(15):1871-1876.

11. Orford JL, Sesso HD, Stedman M, Gagnon D, Vokonas P, Gaziano JM. A comparison of the Framingham and European Society of Cardiology coronary heart disease risk prediction models in the normative aging study. American Heart Journal. 2002;144(1):95-100.

12. Rodondi N, Locatelli I, Aujesky D, et al. Framingham Risk Score and alternatives for prediction of coronary heart disease in older adults. PLoS ONE. 2014;7(3):e34287.

13. Thomsen TF, McGee D, Davidsen M, Jorgensen T. A cross-validation of risk-scores for coronary heart disease mortality based on data from the Glostrup Population Studies and Framingham Heart Study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2002;31(4):817-822.

14. Suka M, Sugimori H, Yoshida K. Application of the updated Framingham risk score to Japanese men. Hypertension Research – Clinical & Experimental. 2001;24(6):685-689.

15. Suka M, Sugimori H, Yoshida K. Validity of the Framingham Risk Model applied to Japanese men. Methods of Information in Medicine. 2002;41(3):213-215.

16. Uthoff H, Staub D, Socrates T, et al. PROCAM-, FRAMINGHAM-, SCORE- and SMART-risk score for predicting cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with overt atherosclerosis. Vasa. 2010;39(4):325-333.

17. van der Heijden AAWA, Ortegon MM, Niessen LW, Nijpels G, Dekker JM. Prediction of coronary heart disease risk in a general, pre-diabetic, and diabetic population during 10 years of follow-up: accuracy of the Framingham, SCORE, and UKPDS risk functions: The Hoorn Study. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(11):2094-2098.

18. van Kempen BJH, Ferket BS, Kavousi M, et al. Performance of Framingham cardiovascular disease (CVD) predictions in the Rotterdam Study taking into account competing risks and disentangling CVD into coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke. International Journal of Cardiology. 2014;171(3):413-418.

Leave a Reply

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

Skip to content