Comparison of Different Cardiovascular Risk Score and Pulse Wave Velocity-Based Methods for Vascular Age Calculation

Background The calculation of vascular age can help patients understand the importance of adherence to healthy lifestyle and medications. However, multiple methods are available to calculate vascular age and no comparison data is available yet. Our aim was to evaluate vascular age based on the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV). Methods Consecutive subjects between the age of 40-65 years, who took part in a screening program in three general practitioner practices were involved. PWV was measured by tonometry and was compared with normal values. Vascular age was defined based on FRS and SCORE according to literature data. Results One hundred and seventy-two (172) patients were involved. The median chronological age was 55.5 (48.8-61.2) years. The median vascular age based on FRS and SCORE were 64 (54-79) years and 55 (44.2-60.7) years, respectively (p<0.05). Based on PWV, FRS and SCORE, 40.1%, 78.5% and 32% of the subjects had increased vascular age compared with chronological age, respectively (PWV+, FRS1, SCORE+, p<0.05). Fifty-eight (58) (84%) of the PWV+ subjects were also FRS+, and this proportion was high in case of SCORE+ patients as well (n=47, 85.4%). However, only moderate overlap was found between PWV+ and SCORE+ subjects as 17 (30.9%) of SCORE+ patients were also PWV+. Conclusion The differences found between the calculated vascular ages and the proportion of subjects with elevated vascular age warrants further detailed comparison of different vascular age calculation methods.