PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of heartHeartVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
 
Heart. 1999 January; 81(1): 40–46.
PMCID: PMC1728900

Is the Framingham risk function valid for northern European populations? A comparison of methods for estimating absolute coronary risk in high risk men

Abstract

Objective—To examine the validity of estimates of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk by the Framingham risk function, for European populations.
Design—Comparison of CHD risk estimates for individuals derived from the Framingham, prospective cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM), Dundee, and British regional heart (BRHS) risk functions.
Setting—Sheffield Hypertension Clinic.
Patients—206 consecutive hypertensive men aged 35-75 years without preexisting vascular disease.
Results—There was close agreement among the Framingham, PROCAM, and Dundee risk functions for average CHD risk. For individuals the best correlation was between Framingham and PROCAM, both of which use high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. When Framingham was used to target a CHD event rate > 3% per year, it identified men with mean CHD risk by PROCAM of 4.6% per year and all had CHD event risks > 1.5% per year. Men at lower risk by Framingham had a mean CHD risk by PROCAM of 1.5% per year, with 16% having a CHD event risk > 3.0% per year. BRHS risk function estimates of CHD risk were fourfold lower than those for the other three risk functions, but with moderate correlations, suggesting an important systematic error.
Conclusion—There is close agreement between the Framingham, PROCAM, and Dundee risk functions as regards average CHD risk, and moderate agreement for estimates within individuals. Taking PROCAM as the external standard, the Framingham function separates high and low CHD risk groups and is acceptably accurate for northern European populations, at least in men.

Keywords: ischaemic heart disease;  prevention;  risk factors

Figure 1
Individual risk estimates by the Framingham function v the PROCAM function. (A) Dashed line = line of identity; solid line = regression line. (B) Bland-Altman plot.
Figure 2
Individual risk estimates by the Framingham function v the Dundee function. (A) Dashed line = line of identity; solid line = regression line. (B) Bland-Altman plot.
Figure 3
Individual risk estimates by the Framingham function v the BHRS function. (A) Dashed line = line of identity; solid line = regression line. (B) Bland-Altman plot.
Figure 4
Individual risk estimates by the Dundee function v the PROCAM function. (A) Dashed line = line of identity; solid line = regression line. (B) Bland-Altman plot.
Figure 5
Distribution of risk estimates by the Dundee and PROCAM risk functions in individuals identified as having coronary risks above or below 3% per year by the Framingham risk function. Numbers are the mean risks estimated by the Dundee or PROCAM functions ...

Articles from Heart are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group