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

Risk prediction model construction for post myocardial infarction heart failure by blood immune B cells

Background

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a common cardiac condition with a high incidence of morbidity and mortality. Despite extensive medical treatment for MI, the development and outcomes of post-MI heart failure (HF) continue to be major factors contributing to poor post-MI prognosis. Currently, there are few predictors of post-MI heart failure.

Methods

In this study, we re-examined single-cell RNA sequencing and bulk RNA sequencing datasets derived from the peripheral blood samples of patients with myocardial infarction, including patients who developed heart failure and those who did not develop heart failure after myocardial infarction. Using marker genes of the relevant cell subtypes, a signature was generated and validated using relevant bulk datasets and human blood samples.

Results

We identified a subtype of immune-activated B cells that distinguished post-MI HF patients from non-HF patients. Polymerase chain reaction was used to confirm these findings in independent cohorts. By combining the specific marker genes of B cell subtypes, we developed a prediction model of 13 markers that can predict the risk of HF in patients after myocardial infarction, providing new ideas and tools for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Conclusion

Sub-cluster B cells may play a significant role in post-MI HF. We found that the STING1, HSPB1, CCL5, ACTN1, and ITGB2 genes in patients with post-MI HF showed the same trend of increase as those without post-MI HF.

Using cancer risk algorithms to improve risk estimates and referral decisions

Background

Cancer risk algorithms were introduced to clinical practice in the last decade, but they remain underused. We investigated whether General Practitioners (GPs) change their referral decisions in response to an unnamed algorithm, if decisions improve, and if changing decisions depends on having information about the algorithm and on whether GPs overestimated or underestimated risk.

Methods

157 UK GPs were presented with 20 vignettes describing patients with possible colorectal cancer symptoms. GPs gave their risk estimates and inclination to refer. They then saw the risk score of an unnamed algorithm and could update their responses. Half of the sample was given information about the algorithm's derivation, validation, and accuracy. At the end, we measured their algorithm disposition. We analysed the data using multilevel regressions with random intercepts by GP and vignette.

Results

We find that, after receiving the algorithm's estimate, GPs' inclination to refer changes 26% of the time and their decisions switch entirely 3% of the time. Decisions become more consistent with the NICE 3% referral threshold (OR 1.45 [1.27, 1.65], p < .001). The algorithm's impact is greatest when GPs have underestimated risk. Information about the algorithm does not have a discernible effect on decisions but it results in a more positive GP disposition towards the algorithm. GPs' risk estimates become better calibrated over time, i.e., move closer to the algorithm.

Conclusions

Cancer risk algorithms have the potential to improve cancer referral decisions. Their use as learning tools to improve risk estimates is promising and should be further investigated.

Clinical risk prediction model for 30-day all-cause re-hospitalisation or mortality in patients hospitalised with heart failure

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop a risk prediction model (AUS-HF model) for 30-day all-cause re-hospitalisation or death among patients admitted with acute heart failure (HF) to inform follow-up after hospitalisation. The model uses routinely collected measures at point of care.

METHODS

We analyzed pooled individual-level data from two cohort studies on acute HF patients followed for 30-days after discharge in 17 hospitals in Victoria, Australia (2014-2017). A set of 58 candidate predictors, commonly recorded in electronic medical records (EMR) including demographic, medical and social measures were considered. We used backward stepwise selection and LASSO for model development, bootstrap for internal validation, C-statistic for discrimination, and calibration slopes and plots for model calibration.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1380 patients, 42.1% female, median age 78.7 years (interquartile range = 16.2), 60.0% experienced previous hospitalisation for HF and 333 (24.1%) were re-hospitalised or died within 30 days post-discharge. The final risk model included 10 variables (admission: eGFR, and prescription of anticoagulants and thiazide diuretics; discharge: length of stay>3 days, systolic BP, heart rate, sodium level (<135 mmol/L), >10 prescribed medications, prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and anticoagulants prescription. The discrimination of the model was moderate (C-statistic = 0.684, 95%CI 0.653, 0.716; optimism estimate = 0.062) with good calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

The AUS-HF model incorporating routinely collected point-of-care data from EMRs enables real-time risk estimation and can be easily implemented by clinicians. It can predict with moderate accuracy risk of 30-day hospitalisation or mortality and inform decisions around the intensity of follow-up after hospital discharge.

Gambling With Cardiovascular Disease Risk Models: How to Choose and How to Use

Cardiovascular risk assessment has been shown to improve physicians' and patients' understanding of an individual's future risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). It has also been shown to improve the management of cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension and dyslipidemia. Given the challenges of engaging patients to adhere to healthy lifestyle habits or take medications for hypertension and dyslipidemia, the primary role of CVD risk assessment should be to open a discussion about the patient's risk for CVD and associated conditions like adult-onset diabetes. Calculating a patient's long-term risk and estimating the benefits of lifestyle changes or risk factor management may then be used to support long-term patient adherence. However, risk assessment is only a first step and must be followed by evidence-based health-promotion strategies and risk factor medications that have been proven to work.

Systematic examination of a heart failure risk prediction tool: The pooled cohort equations to prevent heart failure

Identification of individuals at risk for heart failure is needed to deliver targeted preventive strategies and maximize net benefit of interventions. To examine the clinical utility of the recently published heart failure-specific risk prediction model, the Pooled Cohort Equations to Prevent Heart Failure, we sought to demonstrate the range of risk values associated with diverse risk factor combinations in White and Black men and women. We varied individual risk factors while holding the other risk factors constant at age-adjusted national mean values for risk factors in each race-sex and age group. We also examined multiple combinations of risk factor levels and examined the range of predicted 10-year heart failure risk using the Pooled Cohort Equations to Prevent Heart Failure risk tool. Ten-year predicted heart failure risk varied widely for each race-sex group across a range of ages and risk factor scenarios. For example, predicted 10-year heart failure risk in a hypothetical 40 year old varied from 0.1% to 9.7% in a White man, 0.5% to 12.3% in a Black man, <0.1% to 9.3% in a White woman, and 0.2% to 28.0% in a Black woman. Higher risk factor burden (e.g. diabetes and hypertension requiring treatment) consistently drove higher risk estimates in all race-sex groups and across all ages. Our analysis highlights the importance of a race and sex-specific multivariable risk prediction model for heart failure to personalize the clinician-patient discussion, inform future practice guidelines, and provide a framework for future risk-based prevention trials for heart failure.

Redevelopment and validation of the SYNTAX score II to individualise decision making between percutaneous and surgical revascularisation in patients with complex coronary artery disease: secondary analysis of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAXES trial with external cohort validation

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials are considered the gold standard for testing the efficacy of novel therapeutic interventions, and typically report the average treatment effect as a summary result. As the result of treatment can vary between patients, basing treatment decisions for individual patients on the overall average treatment effect could be suboptimal. We aimed to develop an individualised decision making tool to select an optimal revascularisation strategy in patients with complex coronary artery disease.

METHODS

The SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study is an investigator-driven extension follow-up of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 85 hospitals across 18 North American and European countries between March, 2005, and April, 2007. Patients with de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) group. The SYNTAXES study ascertained 10-year all-cause deaths. We used Cox regression to develop a clinical prognostic index for predicting death over a 10-year period, which was combined, in a second stage, with assigned treatment (PCI or CABG) and two prespecified effect-modifiers, which were selected on the basis of previous evidence: disease type (three-vessel disease or left main coronary artery disease) and anatomical SYNTAX score. We used similar techniques to develop a model to predict the 5-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal stroke, or non-fatal myocardial infarction) in patients receiving PCI or CABG. We then assessed the ability of these models to predict the risk of death or a major adverse cardiovascular event, and their differences (ie, the estimated benefit of CABG versus PCI by calculating the absolute risk difference between the two strategies) by cross-validation with the SYNTAX trial (n=1800 participants) and external validation in the pooled population (n=3380 participants) of the FREEDOM, BEST, and PRECOMBAT trials. The concordance (C)-index was used to measure discriminative ability, and calibration plots were used to assess the degree of agreement between predictions and observations.

FINDINGS

At cross-validation, the newly developed SYNTAX score II, termed SYNTAX score II 2020, showed a helpful discriminative ability in both treatment groups for predicting 10-year all-cause deaths (C-index=0·73 [95% CI 0·69-0·76] for PCI and 0·73 [0·69-0·76] for CABG) and 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events (C-index=0·65 [0·61-0·69] for PCI and C-index=0·71 [0·67-0·75] for CABG). At external validation, the SYNTAX score II 2020 showed helpful discrimination (C-index=0·67 [0·63-0·70] for PCI and C-index=0·62 [0·58-0·66] for CABG) and good calibration for predicting 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events. The estimated treatment benefit of CABG over PCI varied substantially among patients in the trial population, and the benefit predictions were well calibrated.

INTERPRETATION

The SYNTAX score II 2020 for predicting 10-year deaths and 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events can help to identify individuals who will benefit from either CABG or PCI, thereby supporting heart teams, patients, and their families to select optimal revascularisation strategies.

FUNDING

The German Heart Research Foundation and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality in Adults Aged ≥60 Years According to Recommendations by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and American College of Physicians/American Academy of Family Physicians

In 2017, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American College of Physicians/American Academy of Family Physicians (ACP/AAFP) published blood pressure guidelines. Adults recommended antihypertensive medication initiation or intensification by the ACP/AAFP guideline receive the same recommendation from the ACC/AHA guideline. However, many adults ≥60 years old are recommended to initiate or intensify antihypertensive medication by the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline. We compared atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates according to antihypertensive treatment recommendations in the ACC/AHA and ACP/AAFP guidelines among adults ≥60 years old with systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mm Hg in the REGARDS study (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) and the JHS (Jackson Heart Study). Among 4311 participants not taking antihypertensive medication at baseline, 11.4%, 61.2%, and 27.4% were recommended antihypertensive medication initiation by neither guideline, the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline, and both guidelines, respectively. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates (95% CI) for these groups were 3.4 (1.6-5.2), 18.0 (16.1-19.8), and 25.3 (21.9-28.6) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Among 7281 participants taking antihypertensive medication at baseline, 57.9% and 42.1% were recommended antihypertensive medication intensification by the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline and both guidelines, respectively. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates (95% CI) for these groups were 18.2 (16.7-19.7) and 33.0 (30.5-35.4) per 1000 person-years, respectively. In conclusion, adults recommended initiation or intensification of antihypertensive medication by the ACC/AHA but not the ACP/AAFP guideline have high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk that may be reduced through treatment initiation or intensification.

Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care

Objective

Accurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using χ², correlation and independent t-tests.

Results

We recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS.

Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636).

Conclusions

The majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.

Using Predicted Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Conjunction With Blood Pressure to Guide Antihypertensive Medication Treatment

Using cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk instead of or in addition to blood pressure (BP) to guide antihypertensive treatment is an active area of research. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of studies that could inform this treatment paradigm. We review data from randomized trials on relative and absolute CVD risk reduction that can occur when antihypertensive treatment is guided by CVD risk. We also review population-level data on using CVD risk in conjunction with BP to guide antihypertensive treatment, the broad distribution in CVD risk for people with similar BP levels, and the use of CVD risk for guiding antihypertensive treatment among subgroups including older adults, young adults, and those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. In addition, we review potential challenges in implementing antihypertensive treatment recommendations that incorporate CVD risk. In closing, we provide recommendations for using CVD risk in combination with BP to guide antihypertensive treatment.

Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention.

Cardiovascular disease risk factors in a Nigerian population with impaired fasting blood glucose level and diabetes mellitus

Background

Diabetes is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and there are reports of increasing prevalence of prediabetes in Nigeria. This study therefore characterised CVDs risk factors in subjects with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and diabetes.

Methods

Data from 4 population-based cross-sectional studies on 2447 apparently healthy individuals from 18 - 89 years were analysed. Anthropometric, blood pressure and biochemical parameters were collected and classified. Individuals with IFG (prediabetes) and diabetes were merged each for positive cases of dyslipidaemia, high blood pressure (HBP) or obesity. Optimal Discriminant and Hierarchical Optimal Classification Tree Analysis (HO-CTA) were employed.

Results

Overall prevalence of IFG and diabetes were 5.8% (CI: 4.9 – 6.7%) and 3.1% (CI: 2.4 – 3.8%), respectively. IFG co-morbidity with dyslipidaemia (5.0%; CI: 4.1 – 5.8%) was the highest followed by overweight/obese (3.1%; CI: 2.5 – 3.8%) and HBP (1.8%; CI: 1.3 – 2.4%). The predicted age of IFG or diabetes and their co-morbidity with other CVD risk factors were between 40 – 45 years. Elevated blood level of total cholesterol was the most predictive co-morbid risk factor among IFG and diabetes subjects. Hypertriglyceridaemia was an important risk factor among IFG-normocholesterolaemic-overweight/obese individuals.

Conclusion

The higher prevalence of co-morbidity of CVD risk factors with IFG than in diabetes plus the similar age of co-morbidity between IFG and diabetes highlights the need for risk assessment models for prediabetes and education of individuals at risk about factors that mitigate development of diabetes and CVDs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3910-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Inaccurate risk perceptions contribute to treatment gaps in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

All patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) are at high risk of recurrent events. Despite strong evidence, large treatment gaps exist in CVD secondary prevention. We hypothesise that patients' self-perception and general practitioner's (GP) assessment of future cardiovascular (CV) risk may influence secondary prevention behaviours.

AIM

To examine in patients with known CVD the perceived risk of future CV events and its relationship with use of secondary prevention medications and risk factor control.

METHODS

We examined patient and practitioner's perceived risk and its relationship with the uptake of secondary prevention recommendations in adults with CVD participating in the Australian Hypertension and Absolute Risk Study.

RESULTS

Among the 1453 participants, only 11% reported having a high absolute risk and 29% reported high relative risk of recurrent events. The GP categorised only 30% as having a 5-year risk ≥15%. After adjusting for covariates, hospitalisation within the preceding 12 months was the only significant predictor of patients' accurate risk perception. Conventional CV risk factors were predictive of the GP's risk estimates. Patients who accurately understood their risk reported higher smoking cessation rates (7 vs 3%, P = 0.003) and greater use of antiplatelet, blood pressure lowering therapy and statins (P ≤ 0.01). However, there was no relationship between GP's risk perception and secondary prevention treatments.

CONCLUSION

Both patients and GP have optimistic bias and underestimate the risk of future CV events. Patients' accurate self-perception, but not GP risk perception, was associated with improved secondary preventative behaviours. This suggests that helping patients to understand their risk may influence their motivation towards secondary prevention. Providing support to GP or programmes to help patients better understand their risks could have potential benefit on secondary prevention behaviours.

Scoring the Current Risk Stratification Guidelines in Follow-up Evaluation of Patients After Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty: A Proposal for a Metal-on-Metal Risk Score Supporting Clinical Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

In the follow-up evaluation of patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements, current evidence suggests that orthopaedic surgeons should avoid reliance on any single investigative tool. Current risk stratification guidelines can be difficult to interpret because they do not provide guidance when there are several risk factors in different groups (high and low risk). To improve the clinical utility of risk stratification guidelines, we designed a scoring system to assess the risk of revision.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 1,709 patients (1,912 hips) enrolled in a multicenter follow-up study of a recalled MoM hip replacement. Eleven scoring criteria were determined on the basis of existing follow-up algorithm recommendations and consisted of patient-related factors, symptoms, clinical status, implant type, metal ion levels, and radiographic imaging results. Forward stepwise logistic regression was conducted to determine the minimum set of predictive variables for the risk of revision and to assign variable weights. The MoM risk score for each hip was then created by averaging the weighted values of each predictive variable.

RESULTS

Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded good discrimination between all revised and unrevised hips, with an area under the curve of 0.82 (p < 0.001). The odds of revision for the group with a high MoM risk score were increased by 5.8-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1 to 11.0) relative to the moderate risk group and by 21.8-fold (95% CI, 9.9 to 48.0) compared with the low risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of MoM hip arthroplasty has been limited since 2010, we continue to be faced with the follow-up and risk assessment of thousands of patients who have not had a revision. As more knowledge about risk stratification is gained, the complexity of the algorithms is expected to increase. We propose the use of the MoM risk score as a tool to aid in the clinical decision-making process.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

How general practitioners perceive and grade the cardiovascular risk of their patients

BACKGROUND

Although risk assessment charts have been proposed to identify patients at high cardiovascular risk, in everyday practice general practitioners (GPs) often use their knowledge of the patients to estimate the risk subjectively.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study aimed to describe how GPs perceive, qualify and grade cardiovascular risk in everyday practice.

METHODS

General practitioners had to identify in a random sample of 10% of their contacts the first 20 consecutive patients perceived as being at cardiovascular risk. For each patient essential data were collected on clinical history, physical examination and laboratory tests, for the qualification of risk. At the end of the process GPs subjectively estimated the overall patient's level of risk. General practitioners grading was compared with the risk estimate from a reference chart.

RESULTS

Over a mean time of 25 days 3120 patients perceived as being at cardiovascular risk were enrolled. According to the inclusion scheme each GP had contact with more than 200 patients at cardiovascular risk every month. Thirty percent of these patients had atherosclerotic diseases. Up to 72% of patients without any history of atherosclerotic diseases but perceived to be at risk could be classified according to a reference chart as being at moderate to very high risk. Comparing GPs' grading of risk with a chart estimate there was agreement in 42% of the cases. Major determinants of GPs' underestimation of risk were age, sex and smoking habits, while obesity and family history were independently associated with overestimation.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of their perception GPs properly identify patients at cardiovascular risk in the majority of cases. General practitioners subjective grading of risk level only partially agreed with that given by a chart.

Ruling Out Pulmonary Embolism in Primary Care: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of "Gestalt" and the Wells Rule

PURPOSE

Diagnostic prediction models such as the Wells rule can be used for safely ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) when it is suspected. A physician's own probability estimate ("gestalt"), however, is commonly used instead. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of both approaches in primary care.

METHODS

Family physicians estimated the probability of PE on a scale of 0% to 100% (gestalt) and calculated the Wells rule score in 598 patients with suspected PE who were thereafter referred to secondary care for definitive testing. We compared the discriminative ability (c statistic) of both approaches. Next, we stratified patients into PE risk categories. For gestalt, a probability of less than 20% plus a negative point-of-care d-dimer test indicated low risk; for the Wells rule, we used a score of 4 or lower plus a negative d-dimer test. We compared sensitivity, specificity, efficiency (percentage of low-risk patients in total cohort), and failure rate (percentage of patients having PE within the low-risk category).

RESULTS

With 3 months of follow-up, 73 patients (12%) were confirmed to have venous thromboembolism (a surrogate for PE at baseline). The c statistic was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.83) for gestalt and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) for the Wells rule. Gestalt missed 2 out of 152 low-risk patients (failure rate = 1.3%; 95% CI, 0.2%-4.7%) with an efficiency of 25% (95% CI, 22%-29%); the Wells rule missed 4 out of 272 low-risk patients (failure rate = 1.5%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.7%) with an efficiency of 45% (95% CI, 41%-50%).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined with d-dimer testing, both gestalt using a cutoff of less than 20% and the Wells rule using a score of 4 or lower are safe for ruling out PE in primary care. The Wells rule is more efficient, however, and PE can be ruled out in a larger proportion of suspected cases.

Risk assessment in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in low-resource settings

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevalence is increasing in low- and middle-income countries. Total risk assessment is key to prevention.

METHODS

Studies and guidelines published between 1990 and 2013 were sought using Medline database, PubMed, and World Health Organization report sheets. Search terms included 'risk assessment' and 'cardiovascular disease prevention'. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials were reviewed.

RESULTS

The ideal risk prediction tool is one that is derived from the population in which it is to be applied. Without national population-based cohort studies in sub-Saharan African countries like Nigeria, there is no tool that is used consistently. Regardless of which one is adopted by national guidelines, routine consistent use is advocated by various CVD prevention guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-resource settings, the consistent use of simple tools like the WHO charts is recommended, as the benefit of a standard approach to screening outweighs the risk of missing an opportunity to prevent CVD.

Delirium risk stratification in consecutive unselected admissions to acute medicine: validation of externally derived risk scores

Background: reliable delirium risk stratification will aid recognition, anticipation and prevention and will facilitate targeting of resources in clinical practice as well as identification of at-risk patients for research. Delirium risk scores have been derived for acute medicine, but none has been prospectively validated in external cohorts. We therefore aimed to determine the reliability of externally derived risk scores in a consecutive cohort of older acute medicine patients.

Methods: consecutive patients aged ≥65 over two 8-week periods (2010, 2012) were screened prospectively for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), and delirium was diagnosed using the DSM IV criteria. The reliability of existing delirium risk scores derived in acute medicine cohorts and simplified for use in routine clinical practice (USA, n = 2; Spain, n = 1; Indonesia, n = 1) was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Delirium was defined as prevalent (on admission), incident (occurring during admission) and any (prevalent + incident) delirium.

Results: among 308 consecutive patients aged ≥65 (mean age/SD = 81/8 years, 164 (54%) female), existing delirium risk scores had AUCs for delirium similar to those reported in their original internal validations ranging from 0.69 to 0.76 for any delirium and 0.73 to 0.83 for incident delirium. All scores performed better than chance but no one score was clearly superior.

Conclusions: externally derived delirium risk scores performed well in our independent acute medicine population with reliability unaffected by simplification and might therefore facilitate targeting of multicomponent interventions in routine clinical practice.

Family history assessment for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk analysis - comparison of diagram- and questionnaire-based web interfaces

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a high incidence, especially in New Zealand. The reasons for this are unknown. While most cancers develop sporadically, a positive family history, determined by the number and age at diagnosis of affected first and second degree relatives with CRC is one of the major factors, which may increase an individual’s lifetime risk. Before a patient can be enrolled in a surveillance program a detailed assessment and documentation of the family history is important but time consuming and often inaccurate. The documentation is usually paper-based. Our aim was therefore to develop and validate the usability and efficacy of a web-based family history assessment tool for CRC suitable for the general population. The tool was also to calculate the risk and make a recommendation for surveillance.

Methods

Two versions of an electronic assessment tool, diagram-based and questionnaire-based, were developed with the risk analysis and recommendations for surveillance based on the New Zealand Guidelines Group recommendations. Accuracy of our tool was tested prior to the study by comparing risk calculations based on family history by experienced gastroenterologists with the electronic assessment. The general public, visiting a local science fair were asked to use and comment on the usability of the two interfaces.

Results

Ninety people assessed and commented on the two interfaces. Both interfaces were effective in assessing the risk to develop CRC through their familial history for CRC. However, the questionnaire-based interface performed with significantly better satisfaction (p = 0.001) than the diagram-based interface. There was no difference in efficacy though.

Conclusion

We conclude that a web-based questionnaire tool can assist in the accurate documentation and analysis of the family history relevant to determine the individual risk of CRC based on local guidelines. The calculator is now implemented and assessable through the web-page of a local charity for colorectal cancer awareness and integral part of the local general practitioners’ e-referral system for colonic imaging.

Personal health technology: A new era in cardiovascular disease prevention

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide yet the majority of related risk factors are largely preventable (primary prevention [PP]) and effectively treatable (secondary prevention [SP]) with healthy lifestyle behaviors. The use of information and communication technology (ICT) offers a unique approach to personal health and CVD prevention, as these mediums are relatively affordable, approachable, and accessible. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of ICT-driven personal health technologies and their potential role in promoting and supporting self-care behaviors for PP and SP of CVD. In this review, we focus on technological interventions that have been successful at supporting positive behavior change in order to determine which tools, resources, and methods are most appropriate for delivering interventions geared towards CVD prevention. We conducted a literature search from a range of sources including scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in PubMed and CINAHL, gray literature, and reputable websites and other Internet-based media. A synthesis of existing literature indicates that the overall efficacy of ICT-driven personal health technologies is largely determined by: 1) the educational resources provided and the extent to which the relayed information is customized or individually tailored; and 2) the degree of self-monitoring and levels of personalized feedback or other interactions (e.g. interpersonal communications). We conclude that virtually all the technological tools and resources identified (e.g. Internet-based communications including websites, weblogs and wikis, mobile devices and applications, social media, and wearable monitors) can be strategically leveraged to enhance self-care behaviors for CVD risk reduction and SP but further research is needed to evaluate their efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and long-term maintainability.

Do clinicians recommend aspirin to patients for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

BACKGROUND

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated guidelines in 2009 recommending aspirin to prevent myocardial infarction among at-risk men and stroke among at-risk women.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to examine clinician aspirin recommendation among eligible persons based on cardiovascular risk scores and USPSTF cutoffs.

DESIGN

We used across-sectional analysis of a current nationally representative sample.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were aged 40 years and older, and in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (2011-2012).

MAIN MEASURES

We determined aspirin eligibility for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention for each participant based on reported and assessed cardiovascular risk factors. We assessed men's risk using a published coronary heart disease risk calculator based on Framingham equations, and used a similar calculator for stroke to assess risk for women. We applied the USPSTF risk cutoffs for sex and age that account for offsetting risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage. We assessed clinician recommendation for aspirin based on participant report.

RESULTS

Among men 45-79 years and women 55-79 years, 87 % of men and 16 % of women were potentially eligible for primary CVD aspirin prevention. Clinician recommendation rates for aspirin among those eligible were low, 34 % for men and 42 % for women. Rates were highest among diabetics (63 %), those 65 to 79 years (52 %) or those in poor health (44 %). In contrast, aspirin recommendation rates were 76 % for CVD secondary prevention. After accounting for patient factors, particularly age, eligibility for aspirin prevention was not significantly associated with receiving a clinician's recommendation for aspirin (AOR 0.99 %; CI 0.7-1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an "A recommendation" from the USPSTF for aspirin for primary prevention of CVD, the majority of men and women potentially eligible for aspirin did not recall a clinical recommendation from their clinician.

Risk prediction in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to review the literature for risk prediction models in patients with heart failure and to identify the most consistently reported independent predictors of risk across models.

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment provides information about patient prognosis, guides decision making about the type and intensity of care, and enables better understanding of provider performance.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 1995 to March 2013, followed by hand searches of the retrieved reference lists. Studies were eligible if they reported at least 1 multivariable model for risk prediction of death, hospitalization, or both in patients with heart failure and reported model performance. We ranked reported individual risk predictors by their strength of association with the outcome and assessed the association of model performance with study characteristics.

RESULTS

Sixty-four main models and 50 modifications from 48 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 64 main models, 43 models predicted death, 10 hospitalization, and 11 death or hospitalization. The discriminatory ability of the models for prediction of death appeared to be higher than that for prediction of death or hospitalization or prediction of hospitalization alone (p = 0.0003). A wide variation between studies in clinical settings, population characteristics, sample size, and variables used for model development was observed, but these features were not significantly associated with the discriminatory performance of the models. A few strong predictors emerged for prediction of death; the most consistently reported predictors were age, renal function, blood pressure, blood sodium level, left ventricular ejection fraction, sex, brain natriuretic peptide level, New York Heart Association functional class, diabetes, weight or body mass index, and exercise capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several clinically useful and well-validated death prediction models in patients with heart failure. Although the studies differed in many respects, the models largely included a few common markers of risk.

Comparison of cardiovascular disease risk calculators

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The cardiovascular benefit of many preventive interventions (like statins) is strongly dependent on the baseline cardiovascular risk of the patient. Many lipid and vascular primary prevention guidelines advocate for the use of cardiovascular risk calculators.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are over 100 cardiovascular risk prediction models, and some of these models have spawned scores of calculators. Only about 25 of these models/calculators have been externally validated. The ability to identify who will have events frequently varies little (<5%) between models. However, disagreement between risk calculators is common with one in three paired comparisons disagreeing on risk category. In part, this disagreement is because calculators vary according to the database they are derived from, choice of clinical endpoints and risk interval duration upon which the estimate is based. Additional risk factors do little to improve the basic risk predictions performance, except perhaps coronary artery calcium which still requires further study before regular use.

SUMMARY

The estimates provided by cardiovascular risk calculators are ballpark approximations and have a margin of error. Physicians should use models derived from, or calibrated for, populations similar to theirs and understand the endpoints, duration, and special features of their selected calculator.

Cost effectiveness analysis of a next generation risk assessment score for cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of MIRISK VP, a next generation coronary heart disease risk assessment score, in correctly reclassifying and appropriately treating asymptomatic, intermediate risk patients.

STUDY DESIGN

A Markov model was employed with simulated subjects based on the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). This study evaluated three treatment strategies: (i) practice at MESA enrollment, (ii) current guidelines, and (iii) MIRISK VP in MESA.

METHODS

The model assessed patient healthcare costs and outcomes, expressed in terms of life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), over the lifetime of the cohort from the provider and payer perspective. A total of 50,000 hypothetical individuals were used in the model. A sensitivity analysis was conducted (based on the various input parameters) for the entire cohort and also for individuals aged 65 and older.

RESULTS

Guiding treatment with MIRISK VP leads to the highest net monetary benefits when compared to the 'Practice at MESA Enrollment' or to the 'Current Guidelines' strategies. MIRISK VP resulted in a lower mortality rate from any CHD event and a modest increase in QALY of 0.12-0.17 years compared to the other two approaches.

LIMITATIONS

This study has limitations of not comparing performance against strategies other than the FRS, the results are simulated as with all models, the model does not incorporate indirect healthcare costs, and the impact of patient or physician behaviors on outcomes were not taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

MIRISK VP has the potential to improve patient outcomes compared to the alternative strategies. It is marginally more costly than both the 'Practice at MESA Enrollment' and the 'Current Guidelines' strategies, but it provides increased effectiveness, which leads to positive net monetary benefits over either strategy.

Risk predictive modelling for diabetes and cardiovascular disease

Absolute risk models or clinical prediction models have been incorporated in guidelines, and are increasingly advocated as tools to assist risk stratification and guide prevention and treatments decisions relating to common health conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes mellitus. We have reviewed the historical development and principles of prediction research, including their statistical underpinning, as well as implications for routine practice, with a focus on predictive modelling for CVD and diabetes. Predictive modelling for CVD risk, which has developed over the last five decades, has been largely influenced by the Framingham Heart Study investigators, while it is only ∼20 years ago that similar efforts were started in the field of diabetes. Identification of predictive factors is an important preliminary step which provides the knowledge base on potential predictors to be tested for inclusion during the statistical derivation of the final model. The derived models must then be tested both on the development sample (internal validation) and on other populations in different settings (external validation). Updating procedures (e.g. recalibration) should be used to improve the performance of models that fail the tests of external validation. Ultimately, the effect of introducing validated models in routine practice on the process and outcomes of care as well as its cost-effectiveness should be tested in impact studies before wide dissemination of models beyond the research context. Several predictions models have been developed for CVD or diabetes, but very few have been externally validated or tested in impact studies, and their comparative performance has yet to be fully assessed. A shift of focus from developing new CVD or diabetes prediction models to validating the existing ones will improve their adoption in routine practice.

Agreement among cardiovascular disease risk calculators

BACKGROUND

Use of cardiovascular disease risk calculators is often recommended by guidelines, but research on consistency in risk assessment among calculators is limited.

METHOD AND RESULTS

A search of PubMed and Google was performed. Five clinicians selected 25 calculators by independent review. Hypothetical patients were created with the use of 7 risk factors (age, sex, smoking, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, and diabetes mellitus) dichotomized to high and low, generating 2(7) patients (128 total). These patients were assessed by each calculator by 2 clinicians. Risk estimates (and assigned risk categories) were compared among calculators. Selected calculators were from 8 countries, used 5- or 10-year predictions, and estimated either cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease. With the use of 3 risk categories (low, medium, and high), the 25 calculators categorized each patient into a mean of 2.2 different categories, and 41% of unique patients were assigned across all 3 risk categories. Risk category agreement between pairs of calculators was 67%. This did not improve when analysis was limited to just the 10-year cardiovascular disease calculators. In nondiabetics, the highest calculated risk estimate from a calculator averaged 4.9 times higher (range, 1.9-13.3) than the lowest calculated risk estimate for the same patient. This did not change meaningfully for diabetics or when the analysis was limited to 10-year cardiovascular disease calculators.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision as to which calculator to use for risk estimation has an important impact on both risk categorization and absolute risk estimates. This has broad implications for guidelines recommending therapies based on specific calculators.

Subclinical cardiovascular disease assessment in persons with diabetes

Patients with diabetes mellitus are at particularly high risk for cardiovascular disease. Although global risk factor scoring systems, such as the Framingham Risk Score, are well established for screening asymptomatic adults, they are not as predictive in diabetics. Therefore, there has been considerable interest in new screening tests to establish cardiovascular risk in diabetics. Coronary artery calcium assessment, both baseline levels and progression, have been shown to be additive to risk factor scoring systems and are independently predictive of cardiovascular mortality in diabetics. Current American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation guidelines recommend coronary calcium scoring for asymptomatic diabetics. Myocardial perfusion studies are recommended for patients with a coronary calcium score >400 but the level of evidence is poor. The data for other screening tests is limited. Further research is required into assessing what would be an appropriate follow-up duration for serial coronary calcium scanning.

2012 update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult

Many developments have occurred since the publication of the widely-used 2009 Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Dyslipidemia guidelines. Here, we present an updated version of the guidelines, incorporating new recommendations based on recent findings and harmonizing CCS guidelines with those from other Societies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used, per present standards of the CCS. The total cardiovascular disease Framingham Risk Score (FRS), modified for a family history of premature coronary disease, is recommended for risk assessment. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol remains the primary target of therapy. However, non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol has been added to apolipoprotein B as an alternate target. There is an increased emphasis on treatment of higher risk patients, including those with chronic kidney disease and high risk hypertension. The primary panel has recommended a judicious use of secondary testing for subjects in whom the need for statin therapy is unclear. Expanded information on health behaviours is presented and is the backbone of risk reduction in all subjects. Finally, a systematic approach to statin intolerance is advocated to maximize appropriate use of lipid-lowering therapy. This document presents the recommendations and principal conclusions of this process. Along with associated Supplementary Material that can be accessed online, this document will be part of a program of knowledge translation. The goal is to increase the appropriate use of evidence-based cardiovascular disease event risk assessment in the management of dyslipidemia as a fundamental means of reducing global risk in the Canadian population.

The Fremantle Primary Prevention Study: a multicentre randomised trial of absolute cardiovascular risk reduction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of global mortality. Risk factor management in clinical practice often relies on relative risk modification rather than the more appropriate absolute risk assessment.

AIM

To determine whether patients receiving more-frequently designated GP visits had increased benefit in terms of their absolute CVD risk assessment, as compared with patients in receipt of their usual GP care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective, open, pragmatic block randomised study in a 1:1 group allocation ratio in three Western Australian general practices.

METHOD

A convenience sample (n = 1200) of patients aged 40-80 years were randomised to 3-monthly GP visits (five in total for the intensive) or usual GP care (two in total for the opportunistic), with 12 months' follow-up. The main outcome was absolute CVD risk scores based on the New Zealand Cardiovascular Risk Calculator. Others outcome measures were weight, height, waist circumference, blood pressure, and fasting blood lipids and glucose.

RESULTS

There were 600 patients per group at baseline. At 12 months' analysis there were 543 in the intensive group and 569 in the opportunistic group. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) absolute CVD risk reduced significantly between baseline and 12 months in the intensive group (6.28% [5.11] to 6.10% [4.94]) but not in the opportunistic group (6.27% [5.10] to 6.24% [5.38]). There was a significant reduction between baseline and 12 months in mean (SD) total cholesterol (5.28 mmol/l [0.94] to 5.08 mmol/l [0.96]); low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (3.08 mmol/l [0.87] to 2.95 mmol/l [0.89]); triglyceride (1.45 mmol/l [0.86] to 1.36 mmol/l [0.84]); and in mean (SD) waist circumference in men (98.74 cm [10.70] to 97.13 cm [10.20]) and females (90.64 cm [14.62] to 88.96 cm [14.00]) in the intensive group.

CONCLUSION

A targeted approach using absolute risk calculators can be used in primary care to modify global CVD risk assessment.

Use of global coronary heart disease risk assessment in practice: a cross-sectional survey of a sample of U.S. physicians

Background

Global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessment is recommended to guide primary preventive pharmacotherapy. However, little is known about physicians' understanding and use of global CHD risk assessment. Our objective was to examine US physicians' awareness, use, and attitudes regarding global CHD risk assessment in clinical practice, and how these vary by provider specialty.

Methods

Using a web-based survey of US family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists, we examined awareness of tools available to calculate CHD risk, method and use of CHD risk assessment, attitudes towards CHD risk assessment, and frequency of using CHD risk assessment to guide recommendations of aspirin, lipid-lowering and blood pressure (BP) lowering therapies for primary prevention. Characteristics of physicians indicating they use CHD risk assessments were compared in unadjusted and adjusted analyses.

Results

A total of 952 physicians completed the questionnaire, with 92% reporting awareness of tools available to calculate CHD global risk. Among those aware of such tools, over 80% agreed that CHD risk calculation is useful, improves patient care, and leads to better decisions about recommending preventive therapies. However, only 41% use CHD risk assessment in practice. The most commonly reported barrier to CHD risk assessment is that it is too time consuming. Among respondents who calculate global CHD risk, 69% indicated they use it to guide lipid lowering therapy recommendations; 54% use it to guide aspirin therapy recommendations; and 48% use it to guide BP lowering therapy. Only 40% of respondents who use global CHD risk routinely tell patients their risk. Use of a personal digital assistant or smart phone was associated with reported use of CHD risk assessment (adjusted OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.17-2.12).

Conclusions

Reported awareness of tools to calculate global CHD risk appears high, but the majority of physicians in this sample do not use CHD risk assessments in practice. A minority of physicians in this sample use global CHD risk to guide prescription decisions or to motivate patients. Educational interventions and system improvements to improve physicians' effective use of global CHD risk assessment should be developed and tested.

The cardiovascular risk of healthy individuals studied by NMR metabonomics of plasma samples

The identification and the present wide acceptance of cardiovascular risk factors such as age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and physical inactivity have led to dramatic reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, novel risk predictors present opportunities to identify more patients at risk and to more accurately define the biochemical signature of that risk. In this paper, we present a comprehensive metabonomic analysis of 864 plasma samples from healthy volunteers, through Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and multivariate statistical analysis (regression and classification). We have found that subjects that are classified as at high or at low risk using the common clinical markers can also be discriminated using NMR metabonomics. This discrimination is not only due to common markers (such as total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL, HDL), but also to (p < 0.05 after Bonferroni correction) other metabolites (e.g., 3-hydroxybutyrate, α-ketoglutarate, threonine, dimethylglycine) previously not associated with cardiovascular diseases.

IRon Overload screeNing tool (IRON): development of a tool to guide screening in primary care

Iron overload is associated with significant morbidity and mortality yet is easily treated. The objective of this study was to create a tool that could be easily adapted to clinical practice that indicates the likelihood of a patient having undetected iron overload. We used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2002 for US adults aged 20 years and older to build a model (unweighted n=8,779). We chose potential variables for inclusion that could be gathered by self-report or measured without laboratory data and were suggested by past literature on hemochromatosis and iron overload. We computed logistic regressions to create the scores by initially evaluating the variables' relationship with elevated ferritin and elevated transferrin saturation and then using odds ratios to correspond to scores. The resulting score on the IRon Overload ScreeNing Tool (IRON) was then validated with data on 13,844 adults in the NHANES III, 1988-94. Predictors in the final tool were age, gender, previous diagnoses of liver condition, osteoporosis or thyroid disease. The IRON score yielded an area under the curve (AUC) in the NHANES 1999-02 of 0.720 and an AUC of 0.685 in the NHANES III validation sample. The IRON score is a tool to assist in identification of patients with iron overload that has several qualities that make it attractive for use in clinical practice with an undifferentiated patient population including brevity, easily collected information and predictive ability comparable to other tools that help in directing screening.

How do prescribing doctors anticipate the effect of statins?

OBJECTIVES

Statins are a lipid-lowering treatment, prescribed frequently to prevent cardiovascular events. The objective of this study was to explore how doctors anticipate the effect of statins and what factors are associated with their willingness to initiate treatment.

METHODS

A total of 330 Swedish cardiologists, internists and general practitioners were asked to consider two hypothetical patient cases, one with and one without previous coronary heart disease. Based on these cases, the respondents answered questions about their willingness to initiate treatment and what effects they might expect. The expectation of effect was assessed in two ways: (1) the absolute risk reduction of myocardial infarction in 1000 patients treated with statins for 5 years; and (2) statins' average effect on increased life expectancy. The doctors' beliefs about absolute risk reduction were compared with results from clinical trials.

RESULTS

Most doctors had a suboptimal expectation about absolute risk reduction; only about one-third had expectations in the range supported by evidence-based data. There were different views about statins' ability to prolong life: that is, average gain in life expectancy due to treatment was believed to be 2 years in the primary patient case, and 3 years in the second patient case. The doctors' beliefs about statins' ability to prolong life were associated significantly with their willingness to initiate treatment.

CONCLUSION

The overall results imply that doctors have varying and suboptimal understanding of the effect of statins. This may inhibit the goal of integrating clinical research into clinical practice.

Diagnostic classification in patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis: physicians' judgement or a decision rule?

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision rules can aid in referral decisions for ultrasonography in patients suspected of having deep venous thrombosis (DVT), but physicians are not always convinced of their usefulness and rely on their own judgement.

AIM

To compare the performance of a clinical decision rule with the probability of DVT presence as estimated by GPs.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Primary care practices in The Netherlands.

METHOD

GPs (n = 300) estimated the probability of the presence of DVT (range 0-100%) and calculated the score for the clinical decision rule in 1028 consecutive patients with suspected DVT. The clinical decision rule uses a threshold of three points and so, for the GP estimates, thresholds were introduced at 10% and 20%. If scores were below these estimates, it was not considered necessary to refer patients for further examination. Differences between the clinical decision rule and the GP estimates were calculated; this is discrimination (c-statistic) and classification of patients.

RESULTS

Data of 1002 patients were eligible for analysis. DVT was observed in 136 (14%) patients. Both the clinical decision rule and GP estimates had good discriminative power (c-statistic of 0.80 and 0.82 respectively). Fewer patients were referred when using the clinical decision rule compared with a referral decision based on GP estimates: 51% versus 79% and 65% (thresholds at 10% and 20% respectively). Both strategies missed a similar and low proportion of patients who did have DVT (range 1.4-2.0%).

CONCLUSION

In patients suspected of DVT both GP estimates and a clinical decision rule can safely discriminate in patients with and without DVT. However, fewer patients are referred for ultrasonography when GPs rely on a clinical decision rule to guide their decision making.

Perceptions of risk: understanding cardiovascular disease

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still the leading cause of death and disability worldwide despite the availability of well-established and effective preventive options. Accurate perception of a patient’s risk by both the patient and the doctors is important as this is one of the components that determine health-related behavior. Doctors tend to not use cardiovascular (CV) risk calculators and underestimate the absolute CV risk of their patients. Patients show optimistic bias when considering their own risk and consistently underestimate it. Poor patient health literacy and numeracy must be considered when thinking about this problem. Patients must possess a reasonably high level of understanding of numerical processes when doctors discuss risk, a level that is not possessed by large numbers of the population. In order to overcome this barrier, doctors need to utilize various tools including the appropriate use of visual aids to accurately communicate risk with their patients. Any intervention has been shown to be better than nothing in improving health understanding. The simple process of repeatedly conveying risk information to a patient has been shown to improve accuracy of risk perception. Doctors need to take responsibility for the accurate assessment and effective communication of CV risk in their patients in order to improve patient uptake of cardioprotective lifestyle choices and preventive medications.

Evaluation of a decision aid and a personal risk profile in community pharmacy for patients considering options to improve cardiovascular health: the OPTIONS pilot study

Objective

In a pilot study, to assess the feasibility and relevance of providing a community pharmacist consultation supplemented by a decision aid (DA) or a personal risk profile (PRP) to patients on lipid-lowering or antihypertensive pharmacotherapy. Preliminary data on the clinical effectiveness of these interventions were collected.

Method

Patients were randomised to DA or PRP and evaluated before, two weeks after, and three months after a pharmacist consultation. No differences were observed between DA and PRP groups; results are reported for all patients combined. The quality of the patients' decision to initiate or maintain lifestyle change and/or pharmacological treatment was evaluated at baseline and two weeks after the consultation by measuring their knowledge, risk perception, decisional conflict and satisfaction with the decision process. The stage of change for various lifestyles and changes in cardiovascular disease (CVD)-risk factors were evaluated at baseline and at three months. Setting Ten community pharmacies.

Key findings

Twenty-six of 42 patients (62%) agreed to participate. Patients reported as excellent or very good the way the information was presented (79%), the amount of information (88%), and the usefulness of the tools (100%). The quality of the patients' decision at baseline was low; one-third of participants correctly estimated their CVD risks and laboratory results, and 54% had high decisional conflict. After the intervention, the satisfaction scores for role in decision making, amount of information provided and pharmacist's attitude were 69%, 81% and 85% respectively, and the proportion of participants with high decisional conflict declined to 25% (P = 0.02). CVD knowledge and risk perception did not change after the intervention. Improvements in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL)-C, total-C/high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-C ratio, body mass index, and estimated 10-year CVD risk were observed.

Conclusion

Providing pharmacist consultation supplemented by a DA or a PRP in community pharmacies is feasible and relevant. However, it did not improve CVD knowledge or risk perception.

Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain: a clinical prediction score

BACKGROUND

Chest pain raises concern for the possibility of coronary heart disease. Scoring methods have been developed to identify coronary heart disease in emergency settings, but not in primary care.

METHODS

Data were collected from a multicenter Swiss clinical cohort study including 672 consecutive patients with chest pain, who had visited one of 59 family practitioners' offices. Using delayed diagnosis we derived a prediction rule to rule out coronary heart disease by means of a logistic regression model. Known cardiovascular risk factors, pain characteristics, and physical signs associated with coronary heart disease were explored to develop a clinical score. Patients diagnosed with angina or acute myocardial infarction within the year following their initial visit comprised the coronary heart disease group.

RESULTS

The coronary heart disease score was derived from eight variables: age, gender, duration of chest pain from 1 to 60 minutes, substernal chest pain location, pain increasing with exertion, absence of tenderness point at palpation, cardiovascular risks factors, and personal history of cardiovascular disease. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was of 0.95 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.92; 0.97. From this score, 413 patients were considered as low risk for values of percentile 5 of the coronary heart disease patients. Internal validity was confirmed by bootstrapping. External validation using data from a German cohort (Marburg, n = 774) revealed a receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.72; 0.81) with a sensitivity of 85.6% and a specificity of 47.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

This score, based only on history and physical examination, is a complementary tool for ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients complaining of chest pain.

Systematic examination of the updated Framingham heart study general cardiovascular risk profile

BACKGROUND

An updated Framingham risk prediction tool was recently published. It features an expanded end point of general cardiovascular disease and a "vascular age" risk communication analogy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically examined the tool to determine which risk factor combinations allow risk thresholds to be reached and how different risk factor burdens translate into vascular age. We varied risk factor levels in isolation and combination and observed risk output patterns, with high risk defined as > or =20% 10-year predicted risk. As expected, we found that age is the major determinant of 10-year predicted risk for both men and women. Younger individuals tend not to exceed 20% 10-year risk even with multiple risk factors, although with marked risk factor burden, including both smoking and diabetes mellitus, men as young as 35 years of age and women as young as 40 years of age can be classified as high risk. For the risk factor levels we entered, predicted risk ranges from 3.1% to 46.8% for a 45-year-old man and 2.4% to 42.7% for a 55-year-old woman. Likewise, vascular age ranges from 37 to >80 years for a 45-year-old man and 39 to >80 years for a 55-year-old woman.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of noncoronary end points in this tool expands the range of predicted risks for men and women at all ages studied. Nevertheless, many younger individuals with high risk factor burden have low 10-year predicted risk. Wide ranges of "vascular age" are available for most chronological ages to assist with risk communication.

Cardiovascular disease and lipids

The commonest manifestations of cardiovascular disease, namely coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke, represent the two most common causes of death in the world today. Furthermore, cardiovascular diseases have the highest healthcare utilisation costs in most countries. Both primary and secondary prevention management strategies are essential. Although more than 200 risk factors for CHD have now been identified, the single most powerful predictor of CHD risk is abnormal lipid levels. The relative risk influences of the various lipid sub-fractions are described, with particular emphasis on LDL cholesterol, which represents the principal target for treatment in most management guidelines. Unfortunately, there remains considerable evidence of continued under-management of patients with elevated cholesterol and cardiovascular risk who are eligible for secondary prevention. The barriers contributing to such physician under-performance are numerous. The more recent recognition of the importance of identifying patients at enhanced risk, but without established disease (primary prevention), will require greatly familiarity with the clinical use of CHD risk scoring systems, most of which are based upon the Framingham equation. Special reference is made to groups at particular risk of CHD. In summary, the application of the enormous evidence-base for interventions in cardiovascular disease, especially over the treatment of elevated cholesterol, pose a huge challenge to primary and secondary care in most healthcare systems.