I understand, given a few parameters - it spits out the likelihood in % of developing CVD or heart issues in the next 10 years.
Question, is the tool only useful if you have no heart disease? For example, if I am healthy and no health issues my score could be low. Similarly, if I have high cholesterol, score could be moderate or higher risk.
However, once you have developed CVD or had an event, does the risk score update accordingly in this tool? Surely, the % should increase in the latter case, but not sure if that is reflected in the tool. Or is it just a tool to calculate the risk, independent of cvd or heart event.
🤔
Written by
TasteLessFood4Life
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
”This calculator is only valid if you do not already have a diagnosis of coronary heart disease (including angina or heart attack) or stroke/transient ischaemic attack” is the heading on the results page. So the answer to your first question would be “yes” .
I’m glad you found that for me, My doctor quoted it to me some 16 years ago but I couldn’t find the reference at that time. Perhaps it hadn’t been published for the patient then!
We are now on QRisk3 which is an algorithmic risk calculator to assess a person’s risk of developing CVD within the next years. Detail in a post below.
Hello, I was totally misled by this tool three years ago. My GP completed it as part of a “well woman health check”. I had a less than 10% chance of a HA or stroke “in the next 10 years”, so I left feeling very happy with that result only to then be in complete shock the year after following a NSTEMI HA! Even the A&E doc said he was “baffled” as all my numbers were good. So I now see these calculators and numbers as “guidelines”. I’ll do my best to stay within where we supposed to be but there’s no guarantees. I even got told by a cardiologist last week to eat less fruit and more vegetables as I am now in the prediabetic range 🙄! Gosh I’ve come to realise that to get back into normal range I must have to lead quite a miserable life. I’ve signed up to the 9 month diabetes prevention programme as I’m at a complete loss where to go from all of this. All my numbers are “normal” apart from the prediabetic which is at 43. Good luck with your future health TasteLessFoodLife and apologies for the tone of my reply but as you can probably sense, I’m pretty fed up with calculations and numbers - for the last two years I’ve lived by them and am still at a loss ❤️ 🧚🏼♀️
The Qrisk is better at assessing the risks in men rather than women. Women have other risk factors that are not included such as having pre eclampsia or gestational diabetes.
See my post about the BCS consensus document about women accessing cardiovascular care.
Hello Milkfairy, thank you for the quick reply. Interestingly enough I’ve just gone into your post and seen the very large document which I will read later on but as you well know, women’s heart health studies are way behind and it seems now this has been raised and become a focus for studies now at long last. Hooray we are now being listened to and this will obviously help with heart health of ladies in the future. Thank you again, I really appreciate the knowledge you share with us. Look after yourself - I remember when I first joined this forum and I couldn’t think of a name and saw and liked yours so I copied you slightly and became Heart Fairy 😆 - hope you didn’t mind 😃. Take care ❤️🧚🏼♀️
My late husband went along expecting to have his “well man” check up, only to be told that they had made a mistake and called him a year too early. Come back next year. The following week he had his first heart attack. Aged 49. Prior to that all of his Qrisk factors had been low. Slim, good diet, regular exercise etc. So you never know. My own risk was estimated at less than 10% a few years prior to my STEMI.
FWiW, my wife had a Total Cholesterol level of 5.9 last year. This was listed in her NHS record as ‘no comment’. This year her Total Cholesterol had fallen to 5.1 but because she had reached 75, her QRisk3 score is higher so she was advised to start taking statins. We were told that the algorithm would suggest that all people take statins after the age of 80 given the higher aged-related QRisk score.
I was less than 5.9 , as I remember only 4.9, and only aged about 65 and my doc put me on statins, using what I assume is the Qrisk, in spite of my resistance to it.
It is pretty obvious it is a statistical tool based on factors trying to explain the risk.
My score has come up with above 25%. Anyway, as I have already CVD - it has underestimated the risk. It is only a tool, so take it with a pinch of salt. Once, genes kick in - it totally understimates it.
A better tool would have been one that calculated the chances of an event happpening, given X. So, if you have CVD - whats the probability of something happening in the next 10 yrs. Thats more useful.
I to behonest have discovered drs don't know how to input correctly, the predictions it gives are extremely unreliable. The predictions for me said I was highly unlikely to develop heart disease in the next 10 years. The following month it was diagnosed that I had be suffering severe Heart Failure to the point the Dr said the amount of damage done to my heart was equivalent to an heart attack. But I have nor had one.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Are My Arteries Getting Worse?
Stress Test
PAD Like CVD - Lifestyle Changes Needed
Echo all done 
