[Luces y sombras de la Guía Europea esc-2021 de Prevención de la Enfermedad Cardiovascular en la Práctica Clínica.] / Lights and shadows of the 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice.

General practitioners see in their consultation a a significant number of patients at high vascular risk (VR). The European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention (2021) recommend a new risk classification and intervention strategies on on vascular risk factors (RF), with the aim of providing a shared decision-making recommendations between professionals and patients. In this document we present a critical analysis of these guidelines, offering possible solutions that can be implemented in Primary Care. It should be noted that there are positive aspects (lights) such as that the SCORE2 (from forty to sixty-nine years) and SCORE2-OP models (from seventy to eighty-nine years) are based on more current cohorts and measure cardiovascular risk in a more accurately manner. In addition, it is proposed to differentiate different risk thresholds according to age-groups. For sake of practicality, cardiovascular risk can be estimated using different websites with the new computer models. However, among the negative aspects (shadows), it seems to be add complexity implementing nine subgroups of subjects according to their age or level of risk, with a defined thresholds that could cause a substantial increase in the potential number of subjects susceptible to treatment without a clear evidence that supports it. In addition, two-step RF interventions could delay achievement of therapeutic goals, especially in very high-risk patients, diabetics, or patients with cardiovascular disease. Given these limitations, in this document we propose practical recommendations in order to simplify and facilitate the implementation of the guideline in primary care.

Los médicos de familia atienden un importante número de pacientes con alto riesgo vascular (RV). Las Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular (2021) proponen una nueva clasificación del riesgo y estrategias de intervención sobre los factores de riesgo (FRV), orientada a la toma de decisiones compartidas entre profesionales y pacientes. En el presente trabajo realizamos un análisis crítico de dichas guías, ofreciendo posibles soluciones prácticas para la Atención Primaria. Son destacables aspectos positivos (luces) que los modelos de RV SCORE2 (entre cuarenta y sesenta y nueve años) y SCORE2-OP (entre setenta y ochenta y nueve años) se basan en cohortes más actuales y miden con mayor exactitud y discriminación dicho riesgo. Además, se propone actuar diferenciadamente sobre el riesgo según la edad. Pragmáticamente, se presentan nuevos modelos informáticos para calcular el riesgo. Sin embargo, entre los aspectos negativos (sombras), parece colegirse una mayor dificultad de implementación al proponerse nueve subgrupos de sujetos según su edad o nivel de riesgo, con un dintel definitorio de alto RV subjetivo que podría ocasionar un incremento sustancial en el número de sujetos susceptibles de tratar sin una discriminación objetiva que lo sustente. Además, las intervenciones sobre los FRV en dos pasos podrían retrasar la consecución de objetivos terapéuticos, sobre todo en pacientes de muy alto riesgo, diabéticos o con enfermedad cardiovascular. Ante las dificultades que plantea la valoración del riesgo, proponemos unificar criterios y simplificar los mensajes claves para hacer unas guías más atractivas y que realmente ayuden a los profesionales de Atención Primaria en su práctica habitual.

[Cardiovascular preventive recommendations. PAPPS 2022 thematic updates. Working groups of the PAPPS]. / Recomendaciones preventivas cardiovasculares. Actualización PAPPS 2022.

The recommendations of the semFYC's Program for Preventive Activities and Health Promotion (PAPPS) for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are presented. The following sections are included: epidemiological review, where the current morbidity and mortality of CVD in Spain and its evolution as well as the main risk factors are described; cardiovascular (CV) risk and recommendations for the calculation of CV risk; main risk factors such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, describing the method for their diagnosis, therapeutic objectives and recommendations for lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatment; indications for antiplatelet therapy, and recommendations for screening of atrial fibrillation, and recommendations for management of chronic conditions. The quality of testing and the strength of the recommendation are included in the main recommendations.

[Cardiovascular preventive recommendations. PAPPS 2020 update]. / Recomendaciones preventivas cardiovasculares. Actualización PAPPS 2020.

The recommendations of the semFYC's Program for Preventive Activities and Health Promotion (PAPPS) for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are presented. The following sections are included: Epidemiological review, where the current morbidity and mortality of CVD in Spain and its evolution as well as the main risk factors are described; Cardiovascular (CV) risk tables and recommendations for the calculation of CV risk; Main risk factors such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, describing the method for their diagnosis, therapeutic objectives and recommendations for lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatment; Indications for antiplatelet therapy, and recommendations for screening of atrial fibrillation. The quality of testing and the strength of the recommendation are included in the main recommendations.

Knowledge, availability, and use of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring in primary care in Spain: the MAMPA study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree of knowledge and management of automated devices for office blood pressure measurement (AD), home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in primary care in Spain. METHODS: Online self-administered survey sent between May 2016 and February 2017 to 2221 primary-care physicians working across Spain. Clinicians were mostly identified through national primary-care scientific societies (20% overall response rate). RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 47.7 years, 55% were women, and 54% reported at least 20 years of primary-care practice. Among them, 47.5% considered ABPM the best diagnostic method for hypertension, 23% chose HBPM, and 7.1% chose office blood pressure. Also, 78.2% had AD available at their centers and 49.0% had ABPM, with slight urban/rural differences. HBPM was recommended in daily practice for hypertension diagnosis by 67% of participants, whereas 30% recommended ABPM. Cost to the patients was the main reason for not using HBPM (42.7%) as was lack of accessibility for not using ABPM (69.8%). Lack of specific training was also reported as an important reason in both cases. CONCLUSION: Even in the possibly best primary care scenario presented by highly motivated physicians (respondents to a voluntary anonymous survey), enormous gaps were observed between current guidelines' recommendations on ABPM and HBPM use for confirming hypertension and the modest degree of knowledge, availability, and use of these technologies.

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish Adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than 10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

Barriers to improved dyslipidemia control: Delphi survey of a multidisciplinary panel.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the barriers that make it difficult for the health care professionals (physicians, nurses and health care managers) to achieve a better control for dyslipidemia in Spain. METHODS: The study has an observational design and was performed using the modified Delphi technique. One hundred and forty-nine panel members from medicine, nursing and health care management fields and from different Spanish regions were selected randomly and were invited to participate. Individual and anonymous opinions were asked by answering a 42-items questionnaire via e-mail (two rounds were done). Level of agreement was assessed using measures of central tendency and dispersion. We analysed commonalities/differences between the three groups (Kappa index and McNemar chi-square). RESULTS: Response rate: 81%. The agreement index was 33.3 (95% CI: 18.9-47.7). Regarding the non-compliance with therapy, it improves with patient education degree in dyslipidemia, patient motivation, the agreement on decisions with the patient and with the use of cardiovascular risk measure and it gets worse with lack of information on the objectives to achieve. Clinical inertia improves with professional's motivation, cardiovascular risk calculation, training on objectives and the use of indicators and it gets worse with lack of treatment goals. CONCLUSION: Different perceptions and attitudes between medicine, nursing and health care management were found. An agreement in interventions in non-compliance and clinical inertia to improve dyslipidemia control was reached.

Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management: differences between the European and American Guidelines.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

[Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology position statement on dyslipidemia management. Differences between the European and American guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del comité español interdisciplinario de prevención cardiovascular y la sociedad española de cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

[Spanish interdisciplinary committee for cardiovascular disease prevention and the spanish society of cardiology position statement on dyslipidemia management. Differences between the European and american guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology position statement on dyslipidemia management. Differences between the European and American guidelines.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

[Statement of the Spanish Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular Prevention Committee (CEIPC) on the 2012 European Cardiovascular Prevention Guidelines]. / Comentarios del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular (CEIPC) a las guías europeas de prevención cardiovascular 2012.

Based on the two main frameworks for evaluating scientific evidence--SEC and GRADE--European cardiovascular prevention guidelines recommend interventions across all life stages using a combination of population-based and high-risk strategies with diet as the cornerstone of prevention. The evaluation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) incorporates HDL levels and psychosocial factors, a very high risk category, and the concept of age-risk. They also recommend cognitive-behavioural methods (e.g., motivational interviewing, psychological interventions, led by health professionals and with the participation of the patient's family, to counterbalance psychosocial stress and reduce CVR through the institution of positive habits such as a healthy diet, physical activity, smoking cessation, and adherence to treatment. Additionally, public health interventions--such as smoking ban in public areas or the elimination of trans fatty acids from the food chain--are also essential. Other innovations include abandoning antiplatelet therapy in primary prevention and the recommendation of maintaining blood pressure (BP) within the 130-139/80-85 mmHg range in diabetic patients and individuals with high CVR. Finally, due to the significant impact on patient progress and medical costs, special emphasis is given to the low therapeutic adherence levels observed. In sum, improving cardiovascular prevention requires a true partnership among the political class, public administrations, scientific and professional associations, health foundations, consumer associations, patients and their families. Such partnership would promote population-based and individual strategies by taking advantage of the broad spectrum of scientific evidence available, from clinical trials to observational studies and mathematical models to evaluate population-based interventions, including cost-effectiveness analyses.

[Statement of the Spanish Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular Prevention Committee (CEIPC for its Spanish acronym) on the 2012 European Cardiovascular Prevention Guidelines]. / Comentarios del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular (CEIPC) a las Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular 2012.

Based on the two main frameworks for evaluating scientific evidence (SEC and GRADE) European cardiovascular prevention guidelines recommend interventions across all life stages using a combination of population-based and high-risk strategies with diet as the cornerstone of prevention. The evaluation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) incorporates HDL levels and psychosocial factors, a very high risk category, and the concept of age-risk. They also recommend cognitive-behavioural methods (e.g., motivational interviewing, psychological interventions) led by health professionals and with the participation of the patient's family, to counterbalance psychosocial stress and reduce CVR through the institution of positive habits such as a healthy diet, physical activity, smoking cessation, and adherence to treatment. Additionally, public health interventions - such as smoking ban in public areas or the elimination of trans fatty acids from the food chain - are also essential. Other innovations include abandoning antiplatelet therapy in primary prevention and the recommendation of maintaining blood pressure within the 130-139/80-85mmHg range in diabetic patients and individuals with high CVR. Finally, due to the significant impact on patient progress and medical costs, special emphasis is given to the low therapeutic adherence levels observed. In sum, improving cardiovascular prevention requires a true partnership among the political class, public administrations, scientific and professional associations, health foundations, consumer associations, patients and their families. Such partnership would promote population-based and individual strategies by taking advantage of the broad spectrum of scientific evidence available, from clinical trials to observational studies and mathematical models to evaluate population-based interventions, including cost-effectiveness analyses.