Lowering cholesterol for prevention of coronary heart disease--problems and perspectives

Myocardial infarction and percent arteriographic stenosis of culprit lesion: report from the Program on the Surgical Control of the Hyperlipidemias (POSCH)

The objective of this study was to assess the percent stenosis of the culprit lesion responsible for subsequent myocardial infarction in the Program on the Surgical Control of the Hyperlipidemias (POSCH). It is unknown if the susceptible coronary artery culprit lesion responsible for an acute myocardial infarction is relatively large ( > or = 50% arteriographic stenosis) and hemodynamically significant ( > or = 70% stenosis), or small ( < 50%, stenosis) and asymptomatic. Certain necropsy and arteriography studies support the large progenitor lesion concept, and other arteriography studies support the small lesion hypothesis. We analyzed the coronary arteriogram immediately preceding a Q wave (transmural) myocardial infarction for the degree of stenosis of the suspected culprit lesion, which was selected by visual inspection of the coronary circulation supplying the electrocardiogram-defined area of myocardial infarction. There was no perceptible difference with respect to vessel segment distribution of culprit lesions or time to infarction between the 52 control-group patients and the 27 intervention-group patients. For the two groups combined (n=79), the predominantly involved segments were the middle right coronary artery and the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. The time interval from the preceding coronary arteriogram closest to the index myocardial infarction ranged from 0 days to 10 years; however, 64.6% of the arteriograms were performed 2 years or less prior to the myocardial infarction. Only 5.1% of the patients in both groups combined had a culprit lesion stenosis < 50%, while 88.6% of the patients in both groups combined had a culprit lesion stenosis > or = 70%. The results strongly favor the large lesion hypothesis of causation for myocardial infarction. It is premature, however, to state that the relative size of the culprit lesion has been indisputably determined. The resolution of this problem has exceedingly important practical implications for the management of patients with known atherosclerotic coronary heart disease and for those asymptomatic individuals with silent atherosclerotic coronary heart disease.

Do doctors accurately assess coronary risk in their patients? Preliminary results of the coronary health assessment study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the ability of doctors in primary care to assess risk patients' risk of coronary heart disease.

DESIGN

Questionnaire survey.

SETTING

Continuing medical education meetings, Ontario and Quebec, Canada.

SUBJECTS

Community based doctors who agreed to enroll in the coronary health assessment study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Ratings of coronary risk factors and estimates by doctors of relative and absolute coronary risk of two hypothetical patients and the "average" 40 year old Canadian man and 70 year old Canadian woman.

RESULTS

253 doctors answered the questionnaire. For 30 year olds the doctors rated cigarette smoking as the most important risk factor and raised serum triglyceride concentrations as the least important; for 70 year old patients they rated diabetes as the most important risk factor and raised serum triglyceride concentrations as the least important. They rated each individual risk factor as significantly less important for 70 year olds than for 30 year olds (all risk factors, P < 0.001). They showed a strong understanding of the relative importance of specific risk factors, and most were confident in their ability to estimate coronary risk. While doctors accurately estimated the relative risk of a specific patient (compared with the average adult) they systematically overestimated the absolute baseline risk of developing coronary disease and the risk reductions associated with specific interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite guidelines on targeting patients at high risk of coronary disease accurate assessment of coronary risk remains difficult for many doctors. Additional strategies must be developed to help doctors to assess better their patients' coronary risk.