Wilma Scholte op Reimer

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 …

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 (version 2012)

European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012) : the Fifth 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).

Stroke-Associated Infection Is an Independent Risk Factor for Poor Outcome after Acute Ischemic Stroke: Data from the Netherlands Stroke Survey

Background: Infections are a common and serious threat to patients with acute ischemic stroke. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of infection on mortality and functional outcome at discharge and at 1 year. Methods: From a consecutive cohort study in 11 centers, the Netherlands Stroke Survey, we selected 521 patients with ischemic stroke admitted to hospital within 48 h of onset. Stroke-associated infection was defined as infection occurring within 7 days after admission. Poor outcome (modified Rankin score >2) was recorded at discharge and at 1 year. Results: Stroke-associated infection occurred in 78 patients (15%); 39 of these (7.5%) had pneumonia and 23 (4.4%) had urinary tract infection. Overall, 276 patients (53%) had a poor outcome at 1 year. Poor outcome was recorded in 69 patients with stroke-associated infection (88%), and 37 of the 78 patients with stroke-associated infection (47%) had died at 1 year. After adjustment for confounders, stroke-associated infection was associated with poor outcome at discharge [odds ratio (OR) 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–6.7] and at 1 year (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.8–8.9). Pneumonia had a stronger association with poor outcome at 1 year (OR 10, 95% CI 2.2–46). Conclusions: This study suggests that stroke-associated infection, in particular pneumonia, is independently associated with poor functional outcome after ischemic stroke.

New-onset atrial fibrillation is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality in hospitalized heart failure patients: results of the EuroHeart Failure Survey

AIMS The prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation (AF) in hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) remains poorly understood. To evaluate in what way AF and its different modes of presentation affect the in-hospital mortality in patients admitted with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS The EuroHeart Failure Survey was conducted to ascertain how hospitalized HF patients are managed in Europe. The survey enrolled patients over a 6-week period in 115 hospitals from 24 countries. For this analysis, patients were categorized into three groups according to the type of AF, previous AF (patients known to have had AF prior to admission), new-onset AF (no previous AF with AF diagnosed during hospitalization), and no AF (no previous AF and no AF during hospitalization). Clinical variables, duration of hospitalization, and in-hospital survival status were assessed and compared among groups. Of the 10 701 patients included in the survey; 6027 (57%) had no AF, 3673 (34%) had previous AF, and 1001 (9%) had new-onset AF. Patients with new-onset AF had a longer stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) when compared with previous AF and no AF patients (mean 2.6 +/- 5.3, 1.2 +/- 3.5, and 1.5 +/- 4.1 days, respectively; P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher among patients with new-onset AF when compared with previous AF or no AF patients (12, 7, and 7% respectively; P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple clinical variables, new-onset AF (not previous AF) was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.1-2.0). CONCLUSION In hospitalized patients with HF, new-onset AF is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality and a longer ICU and hospital stay.

Effect of a nurse-coordinated prevention programme on cardiovascular risk after an acute coronary syndrome: main results of the RESPONSE randomised trial

Objective To quantify the impact of a practical, hospital-based nurse-coordinated prevention programme on cardiovascular risk, integrated into the routine clinical care of patients discharged after an acute coronary syndrome, as compared with usual care only. Design RESPONSE (Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists) was a randomised clinical trial. Setting Multicentre trial in secondary and tertiary healthcare settings. Participants 754 patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome. Intervention A nurse-coordinated prevention programme, consisting of four outpatient nurse clinic visits, focusing on healthy lifestyles, biometric risk factors and medication adherence, in addition to usual care. Main outcome measures The main outcome was 10-year cardiovascular mortality risk as estimated by Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included Framingham Coronary Risk Score at 12 months, in addition to changes in individual risk factors. Risk factor control was classified as ‘poor’ if 0 to 3 factors were on target, ‘fair’ if 4 to 6 factors were on target, and ‘good’ if 7 to 9 were on target. Results The mean Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation at 12 months was 4.4 per cent (SD 4.5) in the intervention group and 5.4 per cent (SD 6.2) in the control group (p=0.021), representing a 17.4% relative risk reduction. At 12 months, risk factor control classified as ‘good’ was achieved in 35% of patients in the intervention group compared with 25% in the control group (p=0.003). Attendance to the nurse-coordinated prevention programme was 92%. In the intervention group, 86 rehospitalisations were observed against 132 in the control group (relative risk reduction 34.8%, p=0.023). Conclusions The nurse-coordinated hospital-based prevention programme in addition to usual care is a practical, yet effective method for reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with coronary disease. Our data suggest that the counselling component of the programme may lead to a reduction in hospital readmissions. Trial Registration trialregister.nl Identifier TC1290.

Medication Underuse During Long-Term Follow-Up in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease

Background—Patients with peripheral arterial disease constitute a high-risk population. Guideline-recommended medical therapy use is therefore of utmost importance. The aims of our study were to establish the patterns of guideline-recommended medication use in patients with PAD at the time of vascular surgery and after 3 years of follow up, and to evaluate the effect of these therapies on long-term mortality in this patient group. Methods and Results—Data on 711 consecutive patients with peripheral arterial disease undergoing vascular surgery were collected from 11 hospitals in the Netherlands (enrollment between May and December 2004). After 3.1±0.1 years of follow-up, information on medication use was obtained by a questionnaire (n=465; 84% response rate among survivors). Guideline-recommended medical therapy use for the combination of aspirin and statins in all patients and β-blockers in patients with ischemic heart disease was 41% in the perioperative period. The use of perioperative evidence-based medication was associated with a reduction of 3-year mortality after adjustment for clinical characteristics (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.94). After 3 years of follow-up, aspirin was used in 74%, statins in 69%, and β-blockers in 54% of the patients respectively. Guideline-recommended medical therapy use for the combination of aspirin, statins, and β-blockers was 50%. Conclusions—The use of guideline recommended therapies in the perioperative period was associated with reduction in long-term mortality in patients with peripheral arterial disease. However, the proportion of patients receiving these evidence-based treatments—both at baseline and 3 years after vascular surgery—was lower than expected based on the current guidelines. These data highlight a clear opportunity to improve the quality of care in this high-risk group of patients.

Guidelines for cardiac management in noncardiac surgery are poorly implemented in clinical practice: results from a peripheral vascular survey in the Netherlands.

Background:The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery recommend an algorithm for a stepwise approach to preoperative cardiac assessment in vascular surgery patients. The authors’ main objective was to determine adherence to the ACC/AHA guidelines on perioperative care in daily clinical practice. Methods:Between May and December 2004, data on 711 consecutive peripheral vascular surgery patients were collected from 11 hospitals in The Netherlands. This survey was conducted within the infrastructure of the Euro Heart Survey Programme. The authors retrospectively applied the ACC/AHA guideline algorithm to each patient in their data set and subsequently compared observed clinical practice data with these recommendations. Results:Although 185 of the total 711 patients (26%) fulfilled the ACC/AHA guideline criteria to recommend preoperative noninvasive cardiac testing, clinicians had performed testing in only 38 of those cases (21%). Conversely, of the 526 patients for whom noninvasive testing was not recommended, guidelines were followed in 467 patients (89%). Overall, patients who had not been tested, irrespective of guideline recommendation, received less cardioprotective medications, whereas patients who underwent noninvasive testing were significantly more often treated with cardiovascular drugs (&bgr;-blockers 43% vs. 77%, statins 52% vs. 83%, platelet inhibitors 80% vs. 85%, respectively; all P < 0.05). Moreover, the authors did not observe significant differences in cardiovascular medical therapy between patients with a normal test result and patients with an abnormal test result. Conclusion:This survey showed poor agreement between ACC/AHA guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. Only one of each five patients underwent noninvasive testing when recommended. Furthermore, patients who had not undergone testing despite recommendations received as little cardiac management as the low-risk population.

Quality of Hospital and Outpatient Care After Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack. Insights From a Stroke Survey in The Netherlands

Background and Purpose— Limited data are available on management of outpatients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and on clinicians’ reasons for withholding procedures recommended by guidelines. We assessed to what extent guidelines are appropriately applied after ischemic stroke or TIA, in admitted patients as well as outpatients. Methods— A survey was conducted in 11 centers in the Netherlands, which prospectively enrolled 579 admitted patients and 393 outpatients. Data were collected by trained research assistants. Duplicate assessment in 10% of patients showed good agreement with neurologists (median &kgr;=0.86). Treating neurologists were asked to provide arguments for withholding recommended procedures in eligible patients. Results— Recommended acute procedures were provided in the majority of admitted patients, but less often in outpatients: brain imaging (98% and 93%, respectively), 12-lead ECG (96% and 81%), laboratory tests (97% and 86%), aspirin within 48 hours (90% and 68% of eligible patients). Secondary preventive measures were not always taken in both eligible inpatients and eligible outpatients: carotid endarterectomy (provided in 31% and 30% of patients), antiplatelet agents (93% and 90%), oral anticoagulants (60% and 48%), antihypertensive agents (57% and 44%), and cholesterol-lowering therapy (71% and 52%). Reasons for withholding recommended procedures were plausible for almost all admitted patients, but were unclear in the majority of outpatients. Conclusions— Compared with other national stroke surveys, we found high-quality acute care in admitted ischemic stroke patients, whereas secondary prevention was comparably poor. Although the majority of our centers have rapid-access TIA clinics, there is still substantial potential to improve quality of stroke care in outpatients.

The additional value of patient-reported health status in predicting 1-year mortality after invasive coronary procedures: a report from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularisation

Objective: Self-perceived health status may be helpful in identifying patients at high risk for adverse outcomes. The Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization (EHS-CR) provided an opportunity to explore whether impaired health status was a predictor of 1-year mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing angiographic procedures. Methods: Data from the EHS-CR that included 5619 patients from 31 member countries of the European Society of Cardiology were used. Inclusion criteria for the current study were completion of a self-report measure of health status, the EuroQol Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at discharge and information on 1-year follow-up, resulting in a study population of 3786 patients. Results: The 1-year mortality was 3.2% (n = 120). Survivors reported fewer problems on the five dimensions of the EQ-5D as compared with non-survivors. A broad range of potential confounders were adjusted for, which reached a p<0.10 in the unadjusted analyses. In the adjusted analyses, problems with self-care (OR 3.45; 95% CI 2.14 to 5.59) and a low rating (⩽60) on health status (OR 2.41; 95% CI 1.47 to 3.94) were the most powerful independent predictors of mortality, among the 22 clinical variables included in the analysis. Furthermore, patients who reported no problems on all five dimensions had significantly lower 1-year mortality rates (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81). Conclusions: This analysis shows that impaired health status is associated with a 2–3-fold increased risk of all-cause mortality in patients with CAD, independent of other conventional risk factors. These results highlight the importance of including patients’ subjective experience of their own health status in the evaluation strategy to optimise risk stratification and management in clinical practice.