41. |
- Vallejo-Vaz, Antonio J, et al.
(författare)
-
Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study FromDA VINCI.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Cardiovascular drugs and therapy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1573-7241 .- 0920-3206.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (<70 vs.<55mg/dl, respectively). In the DA VINCI study, residual cardiovascular risk was predicted in ASCVD patients. The extent to which relative and absolute risk might be lowered by achieving ACC/AHA versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommended approaches was simulated.DA VINCI was a cross-sectional observational study of patients prescribed lipid-lowering therapy(LLT) across 18 European countries. Ten-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) was predicted among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized LLT. For patients with LDL-C≥70mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of<70 or<55mg/dl (LDL-C of 69 or 54mg/dl, respectively) was calculated. Relative and absolute risk reductions (RRRs andARRs) were simulated.Of the 2039 patients, 61% did not achieve LDL-C<70mg/dl. For patients with LDL-C≥70mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81-115) mg/dl and 32% (25-43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12-46) and 39 (27-91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7-25%) and 22% (15-32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2-7%) and 6% (4-9%), respectively.In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10years versusthe ACC/AHA approach.
|
|