1. |
- Banegas, José R, et al.
(author)
-
Achievement of lipoprotein goals among patients with metabolic syndrome at high cardiovascular risk across Europe. The EURIKA study.
- 2013
-
In: International Journal of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-5273 .- 1874-1754. ; 166:1, s. 210-214
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To examine for the first time the achievement of lipoprotein treatment goals in patients with metabolic syndrome and lipid abnormalities who are at elevated cardiovascular risk in Europe. METHODS: Cross-sectional study conducted in 2009-2010 in 12 European countries among outpatients aged ≥50years free of clinical cardiovascular disease. We assessed achievement of American Diabetes Association/American College of Cardiology lipid treatment goals in those with metabolic syndrome at highest risk (diabetes plus ≥1 additional major cardiovascular risk factor beyond lipid abnormalities) or high risk (no diabetes but ≥2 additional major cardiovascular risk factors). RESULTS: Among 1431 highest-risk patients, 64.6% (between-country range [BCR] 40-84.5%) were on lipid-lowering medication. Of them, 13.4% (BCR: 2.5-28.6%) had LDL-cholesterol<70mg/dl, non-HDL-cholesterol<100mg/dl, and apolipoprotein B<80mg/dl. Among 832 high-risk patients, 38.7% BCR: 27.5-55.3%) were on lipid-lowering medication. Of them, 20.5% (BCR: 5.5-57.6%) had LDL-cholesterol<100mg/dl, non-HDL-cholesterol<130mg/dl, and apolipoprotein B<90mg/dl. About 96% of highest-risk patients and 94% of high-risk patients were given at least one lifestyle advice (weight reduction, healthy diet, physical activity, no-smoking), but only 1.3% of the former and 4.9% of the latter reached all three lipid goals. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial gap between clinical guidelines and medical practice since only one in 5-7 patients met all treatment targets. Although most patients received lifestyle advice, the effectiveness of counseling was very low. Large between-country differences in outcomes suggest considerable room for improvement.
|
|
2. |
- Dallongeville, Jean, et al.
(author)
-
Survey of physicians' practices in the control of cardiovascular risk factors : the EURIKA study.
- 2012
-
In: European journal of preventive cardiology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2047-4881 .- 2047-4873. ; 19:3, s. 541-550
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: To assess the practices of physicians in 12 European countries in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).METHODS: In 2009, 806 physicians from 12 European countries answered a questionnaire, delivered electronically or by post, regarding their assessment of patients with cardiovascular risk factors, and their use of risk calculation tools and clinical practice guidelines (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00882336). Approximately 60 physicians per country were selected (participation rate varied between 3.1% in Sweden and 22.8% in Turkey).RESULTS: Among participating physicians, 85.2% reported using at least one clinical guideline for CVD prevention. The most popular were the ESC guidelines (55.1%). Reasons for not using guidelines included: the wide choice available (47.1%), time constraints (33.3%), lack of awareness of guidelines (27.5%), and perception that guidelines are unrealistic (23.5%). Among all physicians, 68.5% reported using global risk calculation tools. Written charts were the preferred method (69.4%) and the most commonly used was the SCORE equation (35.4%). Reasons for not using equations included time constraints (59.8%), not being convinced of their usefulness (21.7%) and lack of awareness (19.7%). Most physicians (70.8%) believed that global risk-equations have limitations; 89.8% that equations overlook important risk factors, and 66.5% that they could not be used in elderly patients. Only 46.4% of physicians stated that their local healthcare framework was sufficient for primary prevention of CVD, while 67.2% stated that it was sufficient for secondary prevention of CVD.CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of physicians reported using clinical guidelines for primary CVD prevention. However, time constraints, lack of perceived usefulness and inadequate knowledge were common reasons for not using CVD prevention guidelines or global CVD risk assessment tools.
|
|