Secondary prevention in the clinical management of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Core components, standards and outcome measures for referral and delivery.

Despite major improvements in diagnostics and interventional therapies, cardiovascular diseases remain a major health care and socio-economic burden both in western and developing countries, in which this burden is increasing in close correlation to economic growth. Health authorities and the general population have started to recognize that the fight against these diseases can only be won if their burden is faced by increasing our investment on interventions in lifestyle changes and prevention. There is an overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of secondary prevention initiatives including cardiac rehabilitation in terms of reduction in morbidity and mortality. However, secondary prevention is still too poorly implemented in clinical practice, often only on selected populations and over a limited period of time. The development of systematic and full comprehensive preventive programmes is warranted, integrated in the organization of national health systems. Furthermore, systematic monitoring of the process of delivery and outcomes is a necessity. Cardiology and secondary prevention, including cardiac rehabilitation, have evolved almost independently of each other and although each makes a unique contribution it is now time to join forces under the banner of preventive cardiology and create a comprehensive model that optimizes long term outcomes for patients and reduces the future burden on health care services. These are the aims that the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation has foreseen to promote secondary preventive cardiology in clinical practice.

Challenges in secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases: A review of the current practice

With the changing demography of populations and increasing prevalence of co-morbidity, frail patients and more complex cardiac conditions, the modern medicine is facing novel challenges leading to rapid innovation where evidence and experiences are lacking. This scenario is also evident in cardiovascular disease prevention, which continuously needs to accommodate its ever changing strategies, settings, and goals. The present paper summarises actual challenges of secondary prevention, and discusses how this intervention should not only be effective but also efficient. By this way the paper tries to bridge the gaps between research and real-world findings and thereby may find ways to improve standard care.

Inflammation markers are associated with Cardiovascular diseases risk in adolescents The Young Hearts Project 2000

Purose: The traditional approach for identifying subjects at risk from cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is to determine the extent of clustering of biological risk factors adjusted for lifestyle. Recently, markers of endothelial dysfunction and low grade inflammation, including high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), soluble intercellular adhesion molecules (sICAM), and soluble vascular adhesion molecules (sVCAM), have been included in the detection for high risk individuals. However, the relationship of these novel biomarkers with CVD risk in adolescents remains unclear. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to establish the association of hsCRP, sICAM, and sVCAM with CVD risk in an adolescent population.
Methods: Data from the Young Hearts 2000 cross-sectional cohort study, carried out in 1999-2001, were used. From a total of 2,017 male and female participants, 95 obese subjects were identified and matched according to age, sex, and cigarette smoking, with 95 overweight and 95 normal-weight adolescents. Clustered CVD risk was computed using a sum of Z-scores of biological risk factors. The relationship was described using multiple linear regression analyses.
Results: hsCRP, sICAM, and sVCAM showed significant associations with CVD risk. hsCRP and sICAM had a positive relation with CVD risk, whereas sVCAM showed an inverse relationship. In this study, lifestyle factors showed no relation with CVD risk.
Conclusion: The results fit the hypothesized role of low grade inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in CVD risk in asymptomatic adolescents. The inverse relationship of VCAM, however, is hard to explain and indicates the complex mechanisms underlying CVD. Further research is needed to draw firm conclusions on the biomarkers used.

Cardiovascular disease risk profiles among 'healthy' siblings of patients with early-onset cardiovascular disease:Application of the new SCORE system

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurs more frequently in individuals with a family history of premature CVD. Within families the demographics of CVD are poorly described. DESIGN: We examined the risk estimation based on the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) system and the Joint British Guidelines (JBG) for older unaffected siblings of patients with premature CVD (onset ≤55 years for men and ≤60 years for women). METHODS: Between August 1999 and November 2003 laboratory and demographic details were collected on probands with early-onset CVD and their older unaffected siblings. Siblings were screened for clinically overt CVD by a standard questionnaire and 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). RESULTS: A total of 790 siblings was identified and full demographic details were available for 645. The following siblings were excluded: 41 with known diabetes mellitus; seven with random plasma glucose of 11.1 mmol/l or greater; and eight with ischaemic ECG. Data were analysed for 589 siblings from 405 families. The mean age was 55.0 years, 43.1% were men and 28.7% were smokers. The mean total serum cholesterol was 5.8 mmol/l and hypertension was present in 49.4%. Using the SCORE system, when projected to age 60 years, 181 men (71.3%) and 67 women (20.0%) would be eligible for risk factor modification. Using JBG with a 10-year risk of 20% or greater, 42 men (16.5%) and four women (1.2%) would be targeted. CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of these asymptomatic individuals meet both European and British guidelines for the primary prevention of CVD and should be targeted for risk factor modification. The prevalence of individuals defined as eligible for treatment is much higher when using the SCORE system. © 2007 European Society of Cardiology.

Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in different primary healthcare systems with and without pay-for-performance

Objective: To compare baseline cardiovascular risk management between people recruited from two different healthcare systems, to a research trial of an intervention to optimize secondary prevention. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: General practices, randomly selected: 16 in Northern Ireland (NI) (UK NHS, ‘strong’ infrastructure); 32 in Republic of Ireland (RoI) (mixed healthcare economy, less infrastructure). Patients: 903 (mean age 67.5 years; 69.9% male); randomly selected, known coronary heart disease. Main outcome measures: Blood pressure, cholesterol, medications; validated questionnaires for diet (DINE), exercise (Godin), quality of life (SF12); healthcare usage. Results: More RoI than NI participants had systolic BP>140 mmHg (37% v 28%, p=0.01) and cholesterol >5mmol/l (24% v 17%, p=0.02): RoI mean systolic BP was higher (139 v 132 mm Hg). More RoI participants reported a high fibre intake (35% v 23%), higher levels of physical activity (62% v 44%), and better physical and mental health (SF12); they had more GP (5.6 v 4.4) and fewer nurse visits (1.6 v 2.1) in the previous year. Fewer in RoI (55% v 70%) were prescribed B blockers. Both groups’ ACE inhibitor (41%; 48%) prescribing was similar; high proportions were prescribed statins (84%; 85%) and aspirin (83%; 77%). Conclusions Blood pressure and cholesterol are better controlled among patients in a primary healthcare system with a ‘strong’ infrastructure supporting computerization and rewarding measured performance but this is not associated with healthier lifestyle or better quality of life. Further exploration of differences in professionals’ and patients’ engagement in secondary prevention in different healthcare systems is needed.