Cargando…

Can cardiovascular disease guidelines that advise treatment decisions based on absolute risk be improved?

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) will remain the predominant cause of death and a major cause of morbidity for the foreseeable future. Consequently, CVD prevention offers the greatest potential for the prevention of premature mortality and the compression of morbidity. DISCUSSION: The 2013 g...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Campbell, Duncan J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27846796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-016-0396-y
_version_ 1782467851936858112
author Campbell, Duncan J.
author_facet Campbell, Duncan J.
author_sort Campbell, Duncan J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) will remain the predominant cause of death and a major cause of morbidity for the foreseeable future. Consequently, CVD prevention offers the greatest potential for the prevention of premature mortality and the compression of morbidity. DISCUSSION: The 2013 guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association expand the eligibility for CVD preventive treatment based on the calculated 10-year CVD risk derived from the pooled cohort equation to all persons who have a 10-year risk of CVD of ≥7.5% as estimated by the pooled cohort equation. Previous analyses show that the use of a uniform 10-year risk threshold of 7.5% for all ages disadvantages younger individuals for whom preventive therapy has most to offer. Here I show that reducing the threshold to 3% in younger adults (women aged <66 years and men aged <56 years) will substantially increase the number of cardiovascular events prevented at a similar number needed to treat to prevent one event. Importantly, this increase in cardiovascular event prevention will occur in individuals with greater life expectancy. CONCLUSION: Reducing the threshold 10-year risk of CVD derived from the pooled cohort equation for CVD preventive treatment to 3% in younger adults (women aged <66 years and men aged <56 years) will more effectively prevent premature mortality and compress morbidity to an older age.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5111337
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51113372016-11-25 Can cardiovascular disease guidelines that advise treatment decisions based on absolute risk be improved? Campbell, Duncan J. BMC Cardiovasc Disord Debate BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) will remain the predominant cause of death and a major cause of morbidity for the foreseeable future. Consequently, CVD prevention offers the greatest potential for the prevention of premature mortality and the compression of morbidity. DISCUSSION: The 2013 guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association expand the eligibility for CVD preventive treatment based on the calculated 10-year CVD risk derived from the pooled cohort equation to all persons who have a 10-year risk of CVD of ≥7.5% as estimated by the pooled cohort equation. Previous analyses show that the use of a uniform 10-year risk threshold of 7.5% for all ages disadvantages younger individuals for whom preventive therapy has most to offer. Here I show that reducing the threshold to 3% in younger adults (women aged <66 years and men aged <56 years) will substantially increase the number of cardiovascular events prevented at a similar number needed to treat to prevent one event. Importantly, this increase in cardiovascular event prevention will occur in individuals with greater life expectancy. CONCLUSION: Reducing the threshold 10-year risk of CVD derived from the pooled cohort equation for CVD preventive treatment to 3% in younger adults (women aged <66 years and men aged <56 years) will more effectively prevent premature mortality and compress morbidity to an older age. BioMed Central 2016-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5111337/ /pubmed/27846796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-016-0396-y Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Campbell, Duncan J.
Can cardiovascular disease guidelines that advise treatment decisions based on absolute risk be improved?
title Can cardiovascular disease guidelines that advise treatment decisions based on absolute risk be improved?
title_full Can cardiovascular disease guidelines that advise treatment decisions based on absolute risk be improved?
title_fullStr Can cardiovascular disease guidelines that advise treatment decisions based on absolute risk be improved?
title_full_unstemmed Can cardiovascular disease guidelines that advise treatment decisions based on absolute risk be improved?
title_short Can cardiovascular disease guidelines that advise treatment decisions based on absolute risk be improved?
title_sort can cardiovascular disease guidelines that advise treatment decisions based on absolute risk be improved?
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27846796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-016-0396-y
work_keys_str_mv AT campbellduncanj cancardiovasculardiseaseguidelinesthatadvisetreatmentdecisionsbasedonabsoluteriskbeimproved