Gunilla Burell

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: executive summary

Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents summarize and evaluate all currently available evidence on a particular issue with the aim to assist physicians in selecting the best management strategies for a typical patient, suffering from a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are not substitutes for textbooks. The legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed previously. A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) as well as by other societies and organizations. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found on the ESC web site (http://www.escardio.org/knowledge/guidelines/rules). In brief, experts in the field are selected and undertake a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management and/or prevention of a given condition. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is performed, including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger societies are included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendation of particular treatment options are weighed and graded according to predefined scales, as outlined in the tables below. The experts of the writing panels have provided disclosure statements of all relationships they may have which might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. Any changes in conflict of interest that arise during the writing period must be notified to the ESC. The Task Force report was entirely …

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: full text. Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts).

Other experts who contributed to parts of the guidelines: Edmond Walma, Tony Fitzgerald, Marie Therese Cooney, Alexandra Dudina European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG): Alec Vahanian (Chairperson), John Camm, Raffaele De Caterina, Veronica Dean, Kenneth Dickstein, Christian Funck-Brentano, Gerasimos Filippatos, Irene Hellemans, Steen Dalby Kristensen, Keith McGregor, Udo Sechtem, Sigmund Silber, Michal Tendera, Petr Widimsky, Jose Luis Zamorano Document reviewers: Irene Hellemans (CPG Review Co-ordinator), Attila Altiner, Enzo Bonora, Paul N. Durrington, Robert Fagard, Simona Giampaoli, Harry Hemingway, Jan Hakansson, Sverre Erik Kjeldsen, Mogens Lytken Larsen, Giuseppe Mancia, Athanasios J. Manolis, Kristina Orth-Gomer, Terje Pedersen, Mike Rayner, Lars Ryden, Mario Sammut, Neil Schneiderman, Anton F. Stalenhoef, Lale Tokgözoglu, Olov Wiklund, Antonis Zampelas

Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (Constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts)

Other experts who contributed to parts of the guidelines: Edmond Walma, Schoonhoven (The Netherlands), Tony Fitzgerald, Dublin (Ireland), Marie Therese Cooney, Dublin (Ireland), Alexandra Dudina, Dublin (Ireland) European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG):, Alec Vahanian (Chairperson) (France), John Camm (UK), Raffaele De Caterina (Italy), Veronica Dean (France), Kenneth Dickstein (Norway), Christian Funck-Brentano (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Irene Hellemans (The Netherlands), Steen Dalby Kristensen (Denmark), Keith McGregor (France), Udo Sechtem (Germany), Sigmund Silber (Germany), Michal Tendera (Poland), Petr Widimsky (Czech Republic), José Luis Zamorano (Spain) Document reviewers: Irene Hellemans (CPG Review Coordinator) (The Netherlands), Attila Altiner (Germany), Enzo Bonora (Italy), Paul N. Durrington (UK), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Simona Giampaoli(Italy), Harry Hemingway (UK), Jan Hakansson (Sweden), Sverre Erik Kjeldsen (Norway), Mogens Lytken Larsen (Denmark), Giuseppe Mancia (Italy), Athanasios J. Manolis (Greece), Kristina Orth-Gomer (Sweden), Terje Pedersen (Norway), Mike Rayner (UK), Lars Ryden (Sweden), Mario Sammut (Malta), Neil Schneiderman (USA), Anton F. Stalenhoef (The Netherlands), Lale Tokgözoglu (Turkey), Olov Wiklund (Sweden), Antonis Zampelas (Greece)

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice

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.

Randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy vs standard treatment to prevent recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with coronary heart disease: Secondary Prevention in Uppsala Primary Health Care project (SUPRIM).

BACKGROUND Psychosocial factors are independently associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality, but the effects of psychosocial factor intervention on CVD are uncertain. We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to measure its effects on CVD recurrence. METHODS The study included 362 women and men 75 years or younger who were discharged from the hospital after a coronary heart disease event within the past 12 months. Patients were randomized to receive traditional care (reference group, 170 patients) or traditional care plus a CBT program (intervention group, 192 patients), focused on stress management, with 20 two-hour sessions during 1 year. Median attendance at each CBT session was 85%. Outcome variables were all-cause mortality, hospital admission for recurrent CVD, and recurrent acute myocardial infarction. RESULTS During a mean 94 months of follow-up, the intervention group had a 41% lower rate of fatal and nonfatal first recurrent CVD events (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.59 [0.42-0.83]; P = .002), 45% fewer recurrent acute myocardial infarctions (0.55 [0.36-0.85]; P = .007), and a nonsignificant 28% lower all-cause mortality (0.72 [0.40-1.30]; P = .28) than the reference group after adjustment for other outcome-affecting variables. In the CBT group there was a strong dose-response effect between intervention group attendance and outcome. During the first 2 years of follow-up, there were no significant group differences in traditional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS A CBT intervention program decreases the risk of recurrent CVD and recurrent acute myocardial infarction. This may have implications for secondary preventive programs in patients with coronary heart disease. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00888485.

Women's hearts need special treatment.

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the Western world. Some studies show that the observed decline in cardiovascular mortality is not as pronounced among women as among men. There is a growing awareness that most earlier studies both on primary and secondary risk factors, diagnosis, prognosis, and rehabilitation have focused mainly on men. Thus, there is a need to develop knowledge about women with CHD and to address gender issues in treatment and rehabilitation strategies. Negative affect and emotions increase risk and may interfere with effective cardiac rehabilitation. Therefore, methods for coping with emotional stress need to be included in treatment regimens after a coronary event. The feasibility of a stress management program for women with CHD was assessed in a pilot study. The program consisted of twenty 2-hr group sessions during 1 year, with 5 to 9 participants per group. The pilot study showed that this treatment program had a low dropout rate and resulted in improvement in quality of life and reduction in stress and symptoms. Further work to optimize psychosocial interventions for women with CHD is needed.

EUROPEAN GUIDELINES ON CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE FOURTH JOINT TASK FORCE OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF CARDIOLOGY AND OTHER SOCIETIES ON CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE .

Authors/Task Force Members: Massimo F. Piepoli* (Chairperson) (Italy), Arno W. Hoes* (Co-Chairperson) (The Netherlands), Stefan Agewall (Norway)1, Christian Albus (Germany)9, Carlos Brotons (Spain)10, Alberico L. Catapano (Italy)3, Marie-Therese Cooney (Ireland)1, Ugo Corrà (Italy)1, Bernard Cosyns (Belgium)1, Christi Deaton (UK)1, Ian Graham (Ireland)1, Michael Stephen Hall (UK)7, F. D. Richard Hobbs (UK)10, Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway)1, Herbert Löllgen (Germany)8, Pedro Marques-Vidal (Switzerland)1, Joep Perk (Sweden)1, Eva Prescott (Denmark)1, Josep Redon (Spain)5, Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece)1, Naveed Sattar (UK)2, Yvo Smulders (The Netherlands)1, Monica Tiberi (Italy)1, H. Bart van der Worp (The Netherlands)6, Ineke van Dis (The Netherlands)4, W. M. Monique Verschuren (The Netherlands)1

Psychosocial Risk Factors for Coronary Heart Disease, Their Importance Compared with Other Risk Factors and Gender Differences in Sensitivity

Background Few studies have focused on risk factors in womens lives concerning psychosocial factors and coronary heart disease (CHD). The present study is one of a series in which a wide range of psychosocial factors will be analysed with a focus on women. Women and men have been compared with respect to sensitivity to psychosocial risk factors regarding CHD. The importance of psychosocial risk factors for women, compared with biomedical risk factors has also been studied. Methods A questionnaire (The Stress Profile) was answered by 538 rehabilitation participants (97 women, 441 men) and a reference group (5308 women, 5177 men), aged 40-65 years. Psychosocial factors were investigated using means and b-coefficients. Comparisons between psychosocial and biomedical risk factors were made, with respect to the product of the β-coefficient and the standard deviation for each compared risk factor. Results Significant differences appeared concerning five areas: Work content, workload and control, physical stress reactions, emotional stress reactions and burnout. All showed that the relative sensitivity was larger for women than for men. Predictive psychosocial risk factors for women with respect to CHD were physical stress reactions, emotional stress reactions, burnout, family relationships and daily hassles/satisfactions, and they were on approximately the same level as biomedical risk factors. Conclusions Women appear to be more sensitive than men with respect to psychosocial risk factors for CHD, and the predictive ability of psychosocial risk factors shows great importance. Actions against unhealthy psychosocial conditions are recommended. Both presumptive CHD patients and others might benefit from preventive actions, and since women are more sensitive they will probably gain more than men. Conclusions. This study shows that women appear to be more sensitive than men with respect to psychosocial risk factors for CHD containing work content, workload and control, physical and emotional stress reactions and burnout. Our data also show a pattern, which could indicate that women experience more psychosocial pressure than men. When comparing predictive ability of psychosocial risk factors versus some traditional risk variables for CHD we could show the importance of such factors. Actions against unhealthy psychosocial conditions, especially in the work environment, are recommended for several reasons. Both presumptive CHD patients and others might benefit from such preventive actions, and since women are more sensitive they will probably gain more than men.

Women's hearts--stress management for women with ischemic heart disease: explanatory analyses of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE This randomized controlled study aimed to evaluate the effects on psychosocial variables of a 1-year group-based cognitive-behavioral stress management program developed specifically for women with ischemic heart disease. METHODS The present explanatory (per protocol) analyses include 80 women who were randomized to a 1-year cognitive-behavioral stress management program and 86 who were randomized to usual care (age = 35-77 years). Data were obtained before randomization and after 1 year, when the intervention group had completed the program. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and usual care groups in the psychosocial endpoints at randomization. Both groups improved in all psychosocial variables during the 1-year study period, but the rate of improvement was significantly greater in the intervention group for self-rated stress behavior (P = .006) and vital exhaustion (P = .03). Although changes were in favor of the treatment group also for depressive mood and quality of life, the rates of improvement between the 2 groups did not reach statistical significance (P = .23 and P = .10, respectively). CONCLUSION A 1-year cognitive-behavioral stress management program designed specifically for women improved psychological well-being in some aspects in comparison with usual care.

Modification of the Type A behavior pattern in post-myocardial infarction patients: a route to cardiac rehabilitation.

This study examined the effects of Type A modification on a sample of 49 male post—myocardial infarction patients. These patients were classified as showing Type A behavior, were below the age of 65, and did not have severe angina pectoris or arrythmias. They were randomly assigned either to Type A group treatment or to cardiologic counseling (control condition). The treatment period was 1 year—with weekly and biweekly meetings for the treatment patients and bimonthly meetings for the control patients. Diagnostic procedures included measurements of Type A behavior; self-ratings of anger, hostility, anxiety, depression, marital satisfaction, and social support; and assessment of coronary morbidity. Significant reductions of Type A behavior and independently measured anger were accomplished in the treatment patients. In general, the group differences were maintained at 1-year follow-up. Treatment patients tended to have better medical outcomes and fewer recurrences than control patients over the 2 years.