Search

Background: Options for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, the greatest global cause of death, include population preventive measures (the Rose approach), or specifically seeking out and managing high-risk cases. However, the likely benefit of a population approach has been recently questioned., Objective: To compare the estimated effects of population strategies at varying levels of population-wide risk factor reduction and high-risk strategies at varying rates of screening uptake on cardiovascular disease mortality., Methods: Data (of 109 954 participants) were pooled from six European general population cohort studies [the high-risk cohorts from the SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation) dataset]. The effects of various population and high-risk strategies for the reduction of risk factors were estimated by calculating the change in 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease mortality (SCORE risk) before and after the particular intervention. Risk factors studied were: total cholesterol, blood pressure and smoking., Results: At population level, if a 10-year reduction of blood cholesterol level of 10%, a BP reduction of 10% and a 10% reduction in the prevalence of smoking is considered possible, then 9125 lives per million of the population would be saved over 10 years. In contrast, an approach that treats all high-risk individuals with a polypill containing statin, three half-dose antihypertensives and aspirin, with a 20-80% uptake, would save 1861-7452 lives per million. However, the high-risk estimates are very optimistic, as their achievement would require complete compliance., Conclusion: High-risk and population strategies are complementary. These estimates of the benefits of each may be useful to health planners, when combined with their local knowledge. Recently, benefits of population strategies have been underestimated.

Background: Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), the risk estimation system recommended by the European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention, estimates 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease mortality based on age, sex, country of origin, systolic blood pressure, smoking status and either total cholesterol (TC) or TC/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio. As, counterintuitively, these two systems perform very similarly, we have investigated whether incorporating HDL-C and TC as separate variables improves risk estimation., Methods: The study consisted of 57,302 men and 47,659 women. Cox proportional hazards method was used to derive the function including HDL-C and an identical function without HDL-C for comparison. Risk charts were developed to illustrate the results., Results: Inclusion of HDL-C resulted in a modest but statistically significant improvement in risk estimation, based on the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC); 0.814 versus 0.808, P value less than 0.0001, for the functions with and without HDL-C, respectively. Addition of HDL-C also resulted in a significant and important improvement in risk estimation as measured by net reclassification index, which is highly clinically relevant. Improvement in risk estimation was greatest in women from high-risk countries, in terms of both AUROC and net reclassification index., Conclusion: For the general population, the inclusion of HDL-C in risk estimation results in only a modest improvement in overall risk estimation based on AUROC. However, when using the more clinically that examines reclassification of individuals, clinically useful improvements occur. Inclusion of HDL may be particularly useful in women from high-risk countries and individuals with unusually high or low HDL-C levels. Addition of HDL-C is particularly applicable to electronic, interactive risk estimation systems such as HeartScore.

Guidelines aim to present all the relevant evidence on a particular issue in order to help physicians to weigh the benefits and risks of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. They should be helpful in everyday clinical decision-making. A great number of guidelines have been issued in recent years by different organisations--European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and other related societies. By means of links to web sites of National Societies several hundred guidelines are available. This profusion can put at stake the authority and validity of guidelines, which can only be guaranteed if they have been developed by an unquestionable decision-making process. This is one of the reasons why the ESC and others have issued recommendations for formulating and issuing guidelines. In spite of the fact that standards for issuing good quality guidelines are well defined, recent surveys of guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 1998 have shown that methodological standards were not complied with in the vast majority of cases. It is therefore of great importance that guidelines and recommendations are presented in formats that are easily interpreted. Subsequently, their implementation programmes must also be well conducted. Attempts have been made to determine whether guidelines improve the quality of clinical practice and the utilisation of health resources. In addition, the legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed and examined, resulting in position documents, which have been published by a specific task force. The ESC Committee for practice guidelines (CPG) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new guidelines and expert consensus documents produced by task forces, expert groups or consensus panels. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these guidelines or statements.