 | | | | Related Healthscout Videos | |
|
(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- Most people know when it comes to affairs of the romantic heart, women are not the same as men. It seems the same is true for the physical heart. Researchers who studied a large group of women over about 10 years report what puts women at risk for heart disease is not exactly the same as what puts men at risk.
Study authors explain heart disease risk factors were first uncovered back in the 1960s through large studies conducted mainly in men. Age, high blood pressure, smoking, diabetes, and high cholesterol levels were identified and served as the basis for the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) risk scores used by doctors today. These risk scores help determine the treatments physicians recommends for patients. Scientists have long observed these risk factors don't make good sense for women, because many women end up with heart problems even without the standard risk factors.
Text Continues Below
In a new study, researchers identified risk factors just for women and combined them into a new tool called the Reynolds Risk Score. For women without diabetes, the risk factors include age, systolic blood pressure (the top number in the blood pressure reading), current smoking, total and HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (a hallmark of inflammation), and parental history of heart attack before age 60.
"We developed, validated, and demonstrated highly improved accuracy of two clinical algorithms for global cardiovascular risk prediction that reclassified 40 percent to 50 percent of women at intermediate risk into higher- or lower-risk categories," write the authors. "As 8 to 10 million U.S. women have an ATP-III estimated 10-year risk between 5 percent and 20 percent, application of these data could have an immediate effect on cardiovascular prevention."
This article was reported by Ivanhoe.com, which offers Medical Alerts by e-mail every day of the week. To subscribe, click on: http://www.ivanhoe.com/newsalert/.
SOURCE: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2007;297:611-619
|
.gif)
