Improving Coronary Heart Disease Risk Assessment in Asymptomatic People Role of Traditional Risk Factors and Noninvasive Cardiovascular Tests
TL;DR: Key findings and recommendations of the AHA Prevention V conference are amplified, new research since the conference is highlighted, and an approach to the use of office-based testing and additional noninvasive procedures in selected patients to better define their coronary event risk is proposed.
Abstract: At least 25% of coronary patients have sudden death or nonfatal myocardial infarction without prior symptoms1 Therefore, the search for coronary patients with subclinical disease who could potentially benefit from intensive primary prevention efforts is critically important The American Heart Association’s (AHA) Prevention V Conference, “Beyond Secondary Prevention: Identifying the High Risk Patient for Primary Prevention,” addressed ways to identify more patients who are asymptomatic and clinically free of coronary heart disease (CHD) but at sufficiently high risk for a future coronary event to justify more intensive risk reduction efforts2 In this report, we amplify on key findings and recommendations of the AHA Prevention V conference, highlight new research since the conference, and propose an approach to the use of office-based testing and additional noninvasive procedures in selected patients to better define their coronary event risk The recommendations are concordant with the recently released approach to risk assessment and management from the third report of the Adult Treatment Panel of the National Cholesterol Education Program (ATP-III)3
Enthusiasm for primary prevention and risk assessment in asymptomatic people has been spurred by recent advances in prevention research Lipid-lowering trials demonstrated that primary prevention of coronary events is feasible, evidenced by the West of Scotland Coronary Primary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS) trial4 of hypercholesterolemic men and by the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS) trial5 in average or typical risk men and women with only moderate lipid abnormalities Aspirin6 or ACE inhibitors7 can also reduce risk in selected asymptomatic, high-risk people Emerging coronary risk factors have been described including inflammatory, infectious, and thrombotic markers,8 and there has been a steady flow of reports that focus attention on potential new ways of predicting coronary risk9 In addition, noninvasive tests for subclinical atherosclerotic disease are available …
Citations
More filters
University of California, Irvine1, Saint Francis University2, Wake Forest University3, National Institutes of Health4, University of Minnesota5, Northwestern University6, Columbia University7, Johns Hopkins University8, Carney Hospital9, University of Vermont10, University of California, Los Angeles11, University of Washington12
TL;DR: The coronary calcium score is a strong predictor of incident coronary heart disease and provides predictive information beyond that provided by standard risk factors in four major racial and ethnic groups in the United States.
Abstract: BACKGROUND In white populations, computed tomographic measurements of coronary-artery calcium predict coronary heart disease independently of traditional coronary risk factors. However, it is not known whether coronary-artery calcium predicts coronary heart disease in other racial or ethnic groups. METHODS We collected data on risk factors and performed scanning for coronary calcium in a population-based sample of 6722 men and women, of whom 38.6% were white, 27.6% were black, 21.9% were Hispanic, and 11.9% were Chinese. The study subjects had no clinical cardiovascular disease at entry and were followed for a median of 3.8 years. RESULTS There were 162 coronary events, of which 89 were major events (myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease). In comparison with participants with no coronary calcium, the adjusted risk of a coronary event was increased by a factor of 7.73 among participants with coronary calcium scores between 101 and 300 and by a factor of 9.67 among participants with scores above 300 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the four racial and ethnic groups, a doubling of the calcium score increased the risk of a major coronary event by 15 to 35% and the risk of any coronary event by 18 to 39%. The areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic curves for the prediction of both major coronary events and any coronary event were higher when the calcium score was added to the standard risk factors. CONCLUSIONS The coronary calcium score is a strong predictor of incident coronary heart disease and provides predictive information beyond that provided by standard risk factors in four major racial and ethnic groups in the United States. No major differences among racial and ethnic groups in the predictive value of calcium scores were detected.
2,547 citations
TL;DR: This activity describes the rationale for using carotid ultrasound to identify subclinical vascular disease and to evaluate cardiovascular disease risk, and explains the key components of interpreting carOTid ultrasound studies for cardiovascular Disease risk assessment.
Abstract: Continuing Medical Education Course for "Use of Carotid Ultrasound to Identify Subclinical Vascular Disease and Evaluate Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Consensus Statement for the American Society of Echocardiography Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Task Force" Accreditation Statement The American Society of Echocardiography is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The American Society of Echocardiography designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits ™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. ARDMS and CCI recognize ASE's certificates and have agreed to honor the credit hours toward their registry requirements for sonographers. The American Society of Echocardiography is committed to resolving all conflict of interest issues, and its mandate is to retain only those speakers with financial interests that can be reconciled with the goals and educational integrity of the educational program. Disclosure of faculty and commercial support sponsor relationships, if any, have been indicated. Target Audience 1. Physicians, physicians' assistants, and nurses with an interest in cardiac and vascular imaging, preventive cardiology, and cardiovascular disease risk assessment. 2. Ultrasonographers with interest in vascular imaging and cardiovascular disease risk assessment. Objectives Upon completing this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Describe the rationale for using carotid ultrasound to identify subclinical vascular disease and to evaluate cardiovascular disease risk. 2. Explain the application of carotid ultrasound to cardiovascular disease risk assessment. 3. Describe the scanning technique for identifying subclinical vascular disease using carotid ultrasound. 4. Explain the key components of interpreting carotid ultrasound studies for cardiovascular disease risk assessment. Authors Disclosures James H. Stein, MD, FASE: Research grants: Siemens Medical Solutions, Sonosite Intellectual property: listed as the inventor of Patent #US 6,730,0235 "Ultrasonic Apparatus and Method for Providing Quantitative Indication of Risk of Coronary Heart Disease." It has been assigned to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. Emile R. Mohler III, MD: Speakers bureau for Merck, BMS-Sanofi and AstraZeneca; Research grant support from BMS-Sanofi, Pfizer and GSK. Christopher M. Rembold, MD: Advisory Board for Sonosite. Estimated Time to Complete This Activity: 1 hour
2,097 citations
TL;DR: It is essential that the medical profession play a central role in critically evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and procedures for the detection, management, or prevention of disease.
Abstract: It is essential that the medical profession play a central role in critically evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and procedures for the detection, management, or prevention of disease. Properly applied, rigorous, expert analysis of the available data documenting absolute and relative benefits and risks of these therapies and procedures can improve the effectiveness of care, optimize patient outcomes, and favorably affect the cost of care by focusing resources on the most effective strategies. One important use of such data is the production of clinical practice guidelines that, in turn, can provide a foundation for a variety of other applications, such as performance measures, appropriate use criteria, clinical decision support tools, and quality improvement tools.
The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly engaged in the production of guidelines in the area of cardiovascular disease since 1980. The ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Task Force) is charged with developing, updating, and revising practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases and procedures, and the Task Force directs and oversees this effort. Writing committees are charged with assessing the evidence as an independent group of authors to develop, update, or revise recommendations for clinical practice.
Experts in the subject under consideration have been selected from both organizations to examine subject-specific data and write guidelines in partnership with representatives from other medical practitioner and specialty groups. Writing committees are specifically charged to perform a formal literature review; weigh the strength of evidence for or against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and include estimates of expected health outcomes where data exist. Patient-specific modifiers, comorbidities, and issues of patient preference that may influence the choice of tests or therapies are considered. When available, information from studies on cost is considered, but data on efficacy and clinical outcomes constitute …
1,930 citations
TL;DR: Data support the hypothesis that high CACS can modify predicted risk obtained from FRS alone, especially among patients in the intermediate-risk category in whom clinical decision making is most uncertain.
Abstract: ContextGuidelines advise that all adults undergo coronary heart disease (CHD)
risk assessment to guide preventive treatment intensity. Although the Framingham
Risk Score (FRS) is often recommended for this, it has been suggested that
risk assessment may be improved by additional tests such as coronary artery
calcium scoring (CACS).ObjectivesTo determine whether CACS assessment combined with FRS in asymptomatic
adults provides prognostic information superior to either method alone and
whether the combined approach can more accurately guide primary preventive
strategies in patients with CHD risk factors.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsProspective observational population-based study, of 1461 asymptomatic
adults with coronary risk factors. Participants with at least 1 coronary risk
factor (>45 years) underwent computed tomography (CT) examination, were screened
between 1990-1992, were contacted yearly for up to 8.5 years after CT scan,
and were assessed for CHD. This analysis included 1312 participants with CACS
results; excluded were 269 participants with diabetes and 14 participants
with either missing data or had a coronary event before CACS was performed.Main Outcome MeasureNonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD death.ResultsDuring a median of 7.0 years of follow-up, 84 patients experienced MI
or CHD death; 70 patients died of any cause. There were 291 (28%) participants
with an FRS of more than 20% and 221 (21%) with a CACS of more than 300. Compared
with an FRS of less than 10%, an FRS of more than 20% predicted the risk of
MI or CHD death (hazard ratio [HR], 14.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 2.0-104; P = .009). Compared with a CACS of zero, a CACS of more
than 300 was predictive (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.1-7.3; P<.001).
Across categories of FRS, CACS was predictive of risk among patients with
an FRS higher than 10% (P<.001) but not with an
FRS less than 10%.ConclusionThese data support the hypothesis that high CACS can modify predicted
risk obtained from FRS alone, especially among patients in the intermediate-risk
category in whom clinical decision making is most uncertain.
1,759 citations
Cites background from "Improving Coronary Heart Disease Ri..."
...Given the uncertainty of current predictive models,(5) the search for new strategies to discriminate patients who would benefit most from intensive primary prevention efforts is a clinically important objective.(3,6) One suggested approach to improve risk prediction over the FRS is the quantification of coronary artery calcium score (CACS), most commonly using computed tomography (CT)....
[...]
TL;DR: Measurement of the ABI may improve the accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction beyond the FRS, and is associated with approximately twice the 10-year total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major coronary event rate compared with the overall rate in each FRS category.
Abstract: Prediction models to identify healthy individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease have limited accuracy. A low ankle brachial index (ABI) is an indicator of atherosclerosis and has the potential to improve prediction.To determine if the ABI provides information on the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality independently of the Framingham risk score (FRS) and can improve risk prediction.Relevant studies were identified. A search of MEDLINE (1950 to February 2008) and EMBASE (1980 to February 2008) was conducted using common text words for the term ankle brachial index combined with text words and Medical Subject Headings to capture prospective cohort designs. Review of reference lists and conference proceedings, and correspondence with experts was conducted to identify additional published and unpublished studies.Studies were included if participants were derived from a general population, ABI was measured at baseline, and individuals were followed up to detect total and cardiovascular mortality.Prespecified data on individuals in each selected study were extracted into a combined data set and an individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted on individuals who had no previous history of coronary heart disease.Sixteen population cohort studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. During 480,325 person-years of follow-up of 24,955 men and 23,339 women, the risk of death by ABI had a reverse J-shaped distribution with a normal (low risk) ABI of 1.11 to 1.40. The 10-year cardiovascular mortality in men with a low ABI (< or = 0.90) was 18.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.3%-24.1%) and with normal ABI (1.11-1.40) was 4.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.7%) (hazard ratio [HR], 4.2; 95% CI, 3.3-5.4). Corresponding mortalities in women were 12.6% (95% CI, 6.2%-19.0%) and 4.1% (95% CI, 2.2%-6.1%) (HR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.4-5.1). The HRs remained elevated after adjusting for FRS (2.9 [95% CI, 2.3-3.7] for men vs 3.0 [95% CI, 2.0-4.4] for women). A low ABI (< or = 0.90) was associated with approximately twice the 10-year total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major coronary event rate compared with the overall rate in each FRS category. Inclusion of the ABI in cardiovascular risk stratification using the FRS would result in reclassification of the risk category and modification of treatment recommendations in approximately 19% of men and 36% of women.Measurement of the ABI may improve the accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction beyond the FRS.
1,685 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Dairy therapy remains the first line of treatment of high blood cholesterol, and drug therapy is reserved for patients who are considered to be at high risk for CHD, and the fundamental approach to treatment is comparable.
Abstract: THE SECOND report of the Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel II, or ATP II) presents the National Cholesterol Education Program's updated recommendations for cholesterol management. It is similar to the first in general outline, and the fundamental approach to treatment of high blood cholesterol is comparable. This report continues to identify low-density lipoproteins (LDL) as the primary target of cholesterol-lowering therapy. As in the first report, the second report emphasizes the role of the clinical approach in primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). Dietary therapy remains the first line of treatment of high blood cholesterol, and drug therapy is reserved for patients who are considered to be at high risk for CHD. However, the second report contains new features that distinguish it from the first. These include the following: Increased emphasis on See also pp 3002 and 3009.
28,495 citations
TL;DR: A simple coronary disease prediction algorithm was developed using categorical variables, which allows physicians to predict multivariate CHD risk in patients without overt CHD.
Abstract: Background—The objective of this study was to examine the association of Joint National Committee (JNC-V) blood pressure and National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) cholesterol categories with coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, to incorporate them into coronary prediction algorithms, and to compare the discrimination properties of this approach with other noncategorical prediction functions. Methods and Results—This work was designed as a prospective, single-center study in the setting of a community-based cohort. The patients were 2489 men and 2856 women 30 to 74 years old at baseline with 12 years of follow-up. During the 12 years of follow-up, a total of 383 men and 227 women developed CHD, which was significantly associated with categories of blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol (all P,.001). Sex-specific prediction equations were formulated to predict CHD risk according to age, diabetes, smoking, JNC-V blood pressure categories, and NCEP total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol categories. The accuracy of this categorical approach was found to be comparable to CHD prediction when the continuous variables themselves were used. After adjustment for other factors, ’28% of CHD events in men and 29% in women were attributable to blood pressure levels that exceeded high normal ($130/85). The corresponding multivariable-adjusted attributable risk percent associated with elevated total cholesterol ($200 mg/dL) was 27% in men and 34% in women. Conclusions—Recommended guidelines of blood pressure, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol effectively predict CHD risk in a middle-aged white population sample. A simple coronary disease prediction algorithm was developed using categorical variables, which allows physicians to predict multivariate CHD risk in patients without overt CHD. (Circulation. 1998;97:1837-1847.)
9,227 citations
TL;DR: Ramipril significantly reduces the rates of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in a broad range of high-risk patients who are not known to have a low ejection fraction or heart failure.
Abstract: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors improve the outcome among patients with left ventricular dysfunction, whether or not they have heart failure. We assessed the role of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, in patients who were at high risk for cardiovascular events but who did not have left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure.A total of 9297 high-risk patients (55 years of age or older) who had evidence of vascular disease or diabetes plus one other cardiovascular risk factor and who were not known to have a low ejection fraction or heart failure were randomly assigned to receive ramipril (10 mg once per day orally) or matching placebo for a mean of five years. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The trial was a two-by-two factorial study evaluating both ramipril and vitamin E. The effects of vitamin E are reported in a companion paper.A total of 651 patients who were assigned to receive ramipril (14.0 percent) reached the primary end point, as compared with 826 patients who were assigned to receive placebo (17.8 percent) (relative risk, 0.78; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.70 to 0.86; P<0.001). Treatment with ramipril reduced the rates of death from cardiovascular causes (6.1 percent, as compared with 8.1 percent in the placebo group; relative risk, 0.74; P<0.001), myocardial infarction (9.9 percent vs. 12.3 percent; relative risk, 0.80; P<0.001), stroke (3.4 percent vs. 4.9 percent; relative risk, 0.68; P<0.001), death from any cause (10.4 percent vs. 12.2 percent; relative risk, 0.84; P=0.005), revascularization procedures (16.3 percent vs. 18.8 percent; relative risk, 0.85; P<0.001), cardiac arrest (0.8 percent vs. 1.3 percent; relative risk, 0.62; P=0.02), [corrected] heart failure (9.1 percent vs. 11.6 percent; relative risk, 0.77; P<0.001), and complications related to diabetes (6.4 percent vs. 7.6 percent; relative risk, 0.84; P=0.03).Ramipril significantly reduces the rates of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in a broad range of high-risk patients who are not known to have a low ejection fraction or heart failure.
7,828 citations
TL;DR: Treatment with pravastatin significantly reduced the incidence of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes without adversely affecting the risk of death from noncardiovascular causes in men with moderate hypercholesterolemia and no history of my Cardiac Infarction.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Lowering the blood cholesterol level may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. This double-blind study was designed to determine whether the administration of pravastatin to men with hypercholesterolemia and no history of myocardial infarction reduced the combined incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarction and death from coronary heart disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 6595 men, 45 to 64 years of age, with a mean (+/- SD) plasma cholesterol level of 272 +/- 23 mg per deciliter (7.0 +/- 0.6 mmol per liter) to receive pravastatin (40 mg each evening) or placebo. The average follow-up period was 4.9 years. Medical records, electrocardiographic recordings, and the national death registry were used to determine the clinical end points. RESULTS Pravastatin lowered plasma cholesterol levels by 20 percent and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol levels by 26 percent, whereas there was no change with placebo. There were 248 definite coronary events (specified as nonfatal myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease) in the placebo group, and 174 in the pravastatin group (relative reduction in risk with pravastatin, 31 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 17 to 43 percent; P < 0.001). There were similar reductions in the risk of definite nonfatal myocardial infarctions (31 percent reduction, P < 0.001), death from coronary heart disease (definite cases alone: 28 percent reduction, P = 0.13; definite plus suspected cases: 33 percent reduction, P = 0.042), and death from all cardiovascular causes (32 percent reduction, P = 0.033). There was no excess of deaths from noncardiovascular causes in the pravastatin group. We observed a 22 percent reduction in the risk of death from any cause in the pravastatin group (95 percent confidence interval, 0 to 40 percent; P = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with pravastatin significantly reduced the incidence of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes without adversely affecting the risk of death from noncardiovascular causes in men with moderate hypercholesterolemia and no history of myocardial infarction.
7,099 citations
Journal Article•
5,537 citations