To know the vascular age (VA) of a sample of general population included in the RICARTO study.
Epidemiological study of the general population aged ≥18 from the Health Area of Toledo, based on the health card database. VA was calculated from the absolute cardiovascular risk (CVR) estimated with the Framingham and SCORE equations (type2 diabetes increased CVR in SCORE 2-fold in men and 4-fold in women). Patients with cardiovascular or renal disease were excluded. An ANCOVA analysis was conducted to adjust and compare the mean of VA by age and sex.
1,496 subjects (53.54% women) were analyzed. Mean (SD) age was 48.77 (14.89) years old and. Mean VA was 51.37 (19.13) with Framingham equation and 57.09 (17.63) years old with SCORE equation. VA was significantly higher in men, low education level, arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, hypertriglyceridemia, diabetes mellitus, abdominal obesity, general obesity, smoking and in individuals with 5CVR factors vs none (P<.001 in all). Higher differences (Cohen\'s D >0.5) were found in non-diabetic vs diabetic people (1.58 Framingham; 2.44 SCORE), normotensive vs hypertensive subjects (1.64 Framingham; 1.19 SCORE), and non-dyslipidemia vs presence of dyslipidemia (0.95 Framingham; 0.66 SCORE).
VA of our sample is two and a half years older than chronological one with Framingham equation and more than eight years with SCORE equation. Control of CVR factors is the key to get a VA closer to real and to obtain a better cardiovascular health in the population.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to study the relationship of healthy vascular aging (HVA) with lifestyle and the components of metabolic syndrome. We also analyzed the differences between chronological age and heart age (HA) and vascular age (VA) in the Spanish adult population without cardiovascular disease.
METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study selected 501 individuals without cardiovascular disease (mean age, 55.9 years; 50.3% women) via random sampling stratified by age and sex. HA was estimated with the Framingham equation, whereas VA was estimated with the VaSera VS-1500 device. HVA was defined as a <5-year difference between the chronological age and the HA or VA and the absence of a vascular lesion, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus.
RESULTS: Compared with the chronological age, the mean HA and VA were 2.98±10.13 and 3.08±10.15 years lower, respectively. Smoking (OR, 0.23), blood pressure ≥ 130/85mmHg (OR, 0.11), altered baseline blood glucose (OR, 0.45), abdominal obesity (OR, 0.58), triglycerides ≥ 150mg/dL (OR, 0.17), and metabolic syndrome (OR, 0.13) decreased the probability of HVA estimated by HA; an active lifestyle (OR, 1.84) and elevated high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (OR, 3.26) increased the probability of HVA estimated by HA. Smoking (OR, 0.45), blood pressure ≥ 130/85mmHg (OR, 0.26), altered baseline blood glucose (OR, 0.42), and metabolic syndrome (OR, 0.40) decreased the probability of HVA estimated by VA; abdominal obesity (OR, 1.81) had the opposite effect.
CONCLUSIONS: HA and VA were 3 years lower than the chronological age. HA was associated with tobacco consumption, physical activity, and the components of metabolic syndrome. Meanwhile, VA was associated with tobacco consumption, blood pressure, waist circumference, and altered baseline glycemia.
BACKGROUND: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02623894.

OBJECTIVE: In Spain, various SCORE tables are available to estimate cardiovascular risk: tables for low-risk countries, tables calibrated for the Spanish population, and tables that include high-density lipoprotein values. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of using one or another SCORE table in clinical practice.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional study carried out in two primary health care centers, individuals aged 40 to 65 years in whom blood pressure and total cholesterol levels were recorded between March 2010 and March 2012 were selected. Patients with diabetes or a history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. Cardiovascular risk was calculated using SCORE for low-risk countries, SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and the calibrated SCORE.
RESULTS: Cardiovascular risk was estimated in 3716 patients. The percentage of patients at high or very high risk was 1.24% with SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 4.73% with the low-risk SCORE, and 15.44% with the calibrated SCORE (P<.01). Treatment with lipid-lowering drugs would be recommended in 10.23% of patients using the calibrated SCORE, 3.12% of patients using the low-risk SCORE, and 0.67% of patients using SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
CONCLUSIONS: The calibrated SCORE table classifies a larger number of patients at high or very high risk than the SCORE for low-risk countries or the SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Therefore, its use would imply treating more patients with lipid-lowering medication. Validation studies are needed to assess the most appropriate SCORE table for use in our setting.