Rick calculators

[sandybrown]

There are many risk calculators available today to use by specialists, GPs and ordinary people. Interpreting the results can be a problem. A, BBC programme, "trust me I am a doctor" had few minutes where the doctor explain the calculations and then varying some parameters to see what changes arte necessary to go for healthier life.

In maths one has to questions an answer, specially when change is given from a trader.

Please do double check all your qrisk calculations.

[sandybrown]

You can use this link to check:

qintervention.org/

There are 21 fields you can fill in. An example, man aged 68 and post code gives.

With these interventions, you would have a 12% risk of getting cardiovascular disease and a 7% risk of getting diabetes in the next 10 years.

If I change this to answer one question on :

Have you had a heart attack, angina, stroke or TIA (a mini-stroke with full recovery within 24hrs)?

and tick this.

CVD comes up with not applicable. Unable to provide a % number!!!

Please see the answer from qrisk, if there has been any heart problem or procedure then there is no risk calculation as I see it.

May be a GP or a specialist may have a different tool.

[sandybrown]

Had a look at few rick calculator programme, most of the calculators comes up with, unable to progress is there is an input yes to the question on heart attack!!!!!!

[Hidden in reply to sandybrown]

Hi Bala

I think that's because the calculators are designed for people without heart disease. Obviously if you've already had a heart attack you're at high risk.

[sandybrown in reply to Hidden]

Thank you. There was a post which gave a risk of (1%). I was trying my best to give my input to that post in many ways!!

The person had a stent and the cardiologist or specialist gave 1% risk.

As I did some work with one of the Internet calculation I have some understanding therefor trying my bet to put the message across.

[Granny56]

Hypertensive heart disease are not accounted for in these risk calculations. Moreover, women (who are more likely to become hypertensive) tend to have very low risk values despite conditions such as metabolic syndrome.

Most risk calculators were devised from information stemming from The Framingham heart trial, a longitudinal cardiovascular study, continuing today and spanning more than 60 years. Women included in the original study were much older and not reflective of society as we know it now. For this reason, NICE guidelines do not support using this risk score advocating qrisk instead. However, qrisk also appears to underestimate cardiovascular risk for women.

My qrisk score was 5% for cardiac disease and 40.2% for diabetes. My latest cardiac echo revealled moderate hypertensive heart disease with mild LVF! In my opinion, these cardiovascular risk assessment scores seem heavily weighted towards ischaemic heart disease to the detriment of all other cardiovascular disease.