Dataset Information

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Risk in Lithuania-Results from EUROASPIRE V Survey.

ABSTRACT: Background and Objectives: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines define targets for lifestyle and risk factors for patients at high risk of developing CVD. We assessed the control of these factors, as well as CVD risk perception in patients enrolled into the primary care arm of the European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events (EUROASPIRE V) survey in Lithuania. Materials and Methods: Data were collected as the part of the EUROASPIRE V survey, a multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional observational study. Adults without a documented CVD who had been prescribed antihypertensive medicines and/or lipid-lowering medicines and/or treatment for diabetes (diet and/oral antidiabetic medicines and/or insulin) were eligible for the survey. Data were collected through the review of medical records, patients' interview, physical examination and laboratory tests. Results: A total of 201 patients were enrolled. Very few patients reached targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (4.5%), waist circumference (17.4%) and body mass index (15.4%). Only 31% of very high CVD risk patients and 52% of high-risk patients used statins. Blood pressure target was achieved by 115 (57.2%) patients. Only 21.7% of patients at very high actual CVD risk and 27% patients at high risk correctly estimated their risk. Of patients at moderate actual CVD risk, 37.5% patients accurately self-assessed the risk. About 60%-80% of patients reported efforts to reduce the intake of sugar, salt or alcohol; more than 70% of patients were current nonsmokers. Only a third of patients reported weight reduction efforts (33.3%) or regular physical activity (27.4%). Conclusions: The control of cardiovascular risk factors in a selected group of primary prevention patients was unsatisfactory, especially in terms of LDL-C level and body weight parameters. Many patients did not accurately perceive their own risk of developing CVD.

SUBMITTER: Urbonas G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7143447 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Risk in Lithuania-Results from EUROASPIRE V Survey.

Urbonas Gediminas G Vencevičienė Lina L Valius Leonas L Krivickienė Ieva I Petrauskas Linas L Lazarenkienė Gintarė G Karpavičienė Justina J Briedė Gabrielė G Žučenkienė Emilė E Vencevičius Karolis K

Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) 20200318 3

Background and Objectives: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines define targets for lifestyle and risk factors for patients at high risk of developing CVD. We assessed the control of these factors, as well as CVD risk perception in patients enrolled into the primary care arm of the European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events (EUROASPIRE V) survey in Lithuania. Materials and Methods: Data were collected as the part ...[more]

PMID: 32197516

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe recent guidelines for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular events are an important advancement. For primary prevention, statins are recommended if the ten-year risk is ≥ 5% (consideration for therapy) or ≥ 7.5% (definitive treatment unless contraindication after discussion). We rationalized that a significant cohort with ten-year risk below the treatment thresholds would predictably surpass them within the recommended 4-6 year window for reassessing the ten-year risk. As atherosclerosis is a progressive disease, these individuals may therefore benefit with more aggressive therapies even at baseline.Methods and findingsWe used publicly available NHANES dataset for ten-year risk calculation. There were 1805 participants. To evaluate the ten-year risk change at five years, we considered two scenarios: no change in the baseline parameters except increased age by five (No Change) and alternatively 10% improvement in systolic BP, total and HDL-c, no smoking with five-year increase in age (Reduced Risk Profile). Amongst non-diabetics with <5% risk at baseline, 35% reached or exceeded 5% risk in five years (5% reached or exceed the 7.5% risk) with No Change and 9% reached or exceeded 5% risk in five years (none reached 7.5% risk) with Reduced Risk Profile; furthermore, 94% of the non-diabetic cohort with baseline risk between 3.5%-5% would exceed the 5% and/or 7.5% boundary limit with No Change. Amongst non-diabetics with 5-7.5% baseline risks, 87% reached or exceeded 7.5% with No Change while 30% reached or exceeded 7.5% risk with Reduced Risk Profile.ConclusionsA significant population cohort at levels below the treatment thresholds will predictably exceed these limits with time with or without improvement in modifiable risk factors and may benefit with more aggressive therapy at baseline. We provide an improved risk calculator that allows for integrating expected risk modification into discussion with an individual. This needs to be prospectively tested in clinical trials.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Canagliflozin is a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor that significantly reduces the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and elevated cardiovascular risk. The comparative effects among participants with and without a history of cardiovascular disease (secondary versus primary prevention) were prespecified for evaluation. METHODS:The CANVAS Program (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) randomly assigned 10?142 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus to canagliflozin or placebo. The primary prevention cohort comprised individuals ?50 years of age with ?2 risk factors for cardiovascular events but with no prior cardiovascular event, and the secondary prevention cohort comprised individuals ?30 years of age with a prior cardiovascular event. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included heart failure hospitalization and a renal composite (40% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate, renal replacement therapy, or renal death). RESULTS:Primary prevention participants (N=3486; 34%) were younger (63 versus 64 years of age), were more often female (45% versus 31%), and had a longer duration of diabetes mellitus (14 versus 13 years) compared with secondary prevention participants (N=6656; 66%). The primary end point event rate was higher in the secondary prevention group compared with the primary prevention group (36.9 versus 15.7/1000 patient-years, P<0.001). In the total cohort, the primary end point was reduced with canagliflozin compared with placebo (26.9 versus 31.5/1000 patient-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority, P=0.02 for superiority) with no statistical evidence of heterogeneity (interaction P value=0.18) between the primary (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.74-1.30) and secondary prevention (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95) cohorts. Renal outcomes (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79 versus HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39-1.02; interaction P value=0.73) and heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90 versus HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.35-1.15; interaction P value=0.91) were similarly reduced in the secondary and primary prevention cohorts, respectively. Lower extremity amputations were similarly increased in the secondary and primary prevention cohorts (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.43-3.00 versus HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.70-3.29; interaction P value=0.63). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and prior cardiovascular events had higher rates of cardiovascular outcomes compared with the primary prevention patients. Canagliflozin reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes with no statistical evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect across the primary and secondary prevention groups. Additional studies will provide further insights into the effects of canagliflozin in these patient populations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01032629 and NCT01989754.

Project description:To identify, critically appraise and summarise existing systematic reviews on the impact of global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adults.Systematic review of systematic reviews published between January 2005 and October 2016 in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE or CINAHL databases, and post hoc analysis of primary trials.Systematic reviews of interventions involving global cardiovascular risk assessment relative to no formal risk assessment in adults with no history of CVD. The primary outcomes of interest were CVD-related morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol and smoking.We identified six systematic reviews of variable but generally of low quality (mean Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 4.2/11, range 0/11 to 7/11). No studies identified by the systematic reviews reported CVD-related morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality. Meta-analysis of reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed small reductions in SBP (mean difference (MD) -2.22?mm?Hg (95% CI -3.49 to -0.95); I2=66%; n=9; GRADE: very low), total cholesterol (MD -0.11?mmol/L (95% CI -0.20 to -0.02); I2=72%; n=5; GRADE: very low), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -0.15?mmol/L (95% CI -0.26 to -0.05), I2=47%; n=4; GRADE: very low) and smoking cessation (RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.43); I2=17%; n=7; GRADE: low). The median follow-up time of reported RCTs was 12?months (range 2-36?months).The quality of existing systematic reviews was generally poor and there is currently no evidence reported in these reviews that the prospective use of global cardiovascular risk assessment translates to reductions in CVD morbidity or mortality. There are reductions in SBP, cholesterol and smoking but they may not be clinically significant given their small effect size and short duration. Resources need to be directed to conduct high-quality systematic reviews focusing on hard patient outcomes, and likely further primary RCTs.CRD42015019821.

Project description:BackgroundGender disparities in the management of dysglycaemia, defined as either impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM), in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients are a medical challenge. Recent data from two nationwide cohorts of patients suggested no gender difference as regards the risk for diabetes-related CV complications but indicated the presence of a gender disparity in risk factor management. The aim of this study was to investigate gender differences in screening for dysglycaemia, cardiovascular risk factor management and prognosis in dysglycemic CAD patients.MethodsThe study population (n = 16,259; 4077 women) included 7998 patients from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE IV (EAIV: 2012-2013, 79 centres in 24 countries) and 8261 patients from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V (EAV: 2016-2017, 131 centres in 27 countries) cross-sectional surveys. In each centre, patients were investigated with standardised methods by centrally trained staff and those without known diabetes were offered an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The first of CV death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure or revascularization served as endpoint. Median follow-up time was 1.7 years. The association between gender and time to the occurrence of the endpoint was evaluated using Cox survival modelling, adjusting for age.ResultsKnown diabetes was more common among women (32.9%) than men (28.4%, p < 0.0001). OGTT (n = 8655) disclosed IGT in 17.2% of women vs. 15.1% of men (p = 0.004) and diabetes in 13.4% of women vs. 14.6% of men (p = 0.078). In both known diabetes and newly detected dysglycaemia groups, women were older, with higher proportions of hypertension, dyslipidaemia and obesity. HbA1c was higher in women with known diabetes. Recommended targets of physical activity, blood pressure and cholesterol were achieved by significantly lower proportions of women than men. Women with known diabetes had higher risk for the endpoint than men (age-adjusted HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.04-1.43).ConclusionsGuideline-recommended risk factor control is poorer in dysglycemic women than men. This may contribute to the worse prognosis in CAD women with known diabetes.

Dataset Information

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Risk in Lithuania-Results from EUROASPIRE V Survey.

Publications

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Risk in Lithuania-Results from EUROASPIRE V Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets