[Framingham function estimates the risk of cardio vascular mortality more effectively than SCORE function in the population of the Canary Islands (Spain)].

INTRODUCTION To compare the performance of the Framingham and SCORE functions to estimate fatal cardiovascular events. In addition, we explored the ability of both functions to detect the risk contributed by factors not included in their equations: sedentariness, obesity, abdominal circumference, abdomen/height razón, abdomen/pelvis ratio, and excessive alcohol consumption. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional study of 5,289 individuals aged 30 to 69 years old, recruited by random sampling of the general population of the Canary Islands. We calibrated the Framingham and SCORE functions and estimated their concordance. The cardiovascular mortality rate for the population in this age range was compared with the risk predicted by the two functions. RESULTS Among males, the mortality rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 67.4, while the Framingham, SCORE-low and SCORE-high estimations were 80, 140, and 270, respectively. Among females, the mortality rate was 19.3 while the estimations were 30, 50, and 70, respectively. Both functions detected the increased risk contributed by the factors studied, except for sedentariness among females with SCORE, and excessive alcohol consumption with both functions. Among males, taking cut points of > or = 12%, > or = 15%, and > or = 20% for Framingham, the concordance with SCORE-low yielded Kappa values of 0.6, 0.7, and 0.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The Framingham function yielded the best estimate of cardiovascular mortality rates. Only Framingham detected the cardiovascular risk contributed by sedentariness in both genders. We recommend the use of the calibrated Framingham function for this population.