Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Evaluated by Office and Home Blood Pressure Measurements. TeleHBPM Study. / Bloqueadores do Receptor de Angiotensina Avaliados por Medida de Consultório e Residencial da Pressão Arterial. Estudo TeleMRPA.

BACKGROUND: Adequate treatment of arterial hypertension and achieving arterial hypertension goals in are important in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe angiotensin receptor blockers in monotherapy or double combination therapy and the rate of arterial hypertension control. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated patients who were using angiotensin receptor blockers between 2017 and 2020. Those using three or more antihypertensive drugs were excluded. The analyzed variables included sex, age, body mass index, valid home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) measurements, casual and HBPM systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements, blood pressure variability, and antihypertensive and angiotensin receptor blocker class. Paired t, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests were used, as well as overlapping 95% confidence intervals and a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Of 17,013 patients, 12,813 met the inclusion criteria, 62.1% of whom were female. The mean number of valid measurements was 23.3 (SD, 2.0). The mean HBPM and casual measurements for systolic blood pressure were 126.8 (SD, 15.8) mmHg and 133.5 (SD, 20.1) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively, while those for diastolic blood pressure were 79.1 (SD, 9.7 mmHg) and 83.6 (SD, 11.9) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively. Losartan was the most common angiotensin receptor blocker and resulted in the highest blood pressure values. Combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers with diuretics or calcium channel antagonists resulted in lower blood pressure values. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the patients used losartan, although it was the least efficient drug for reducing and controlling blood pressure.

FUNDAMENTO: O tratamento adequado e a obtenção das metas na hipertensão arterial são importantes na redução dos desfechos cardiovasculares. OBJETIVOS: Descrever os bloqueadores do receptor de angiotensina (BRA) em monoterapia ou combinação dupla e a taxa de controle da hipertensão arterial. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal que avaliou pacientes em uso de BRA entre 2017 e 2020. Foram excluídos aqueles em uso de três ou mais anti-hipertensivos. As variáveis analisadas foram: sexo, idade, índice de massa corporal, medidas válidas da medida residencial da pressão arterial (MRPA); pressão arterial sistólica (PAS) e diastólica (PAD) obtidas pela MRPA e de forma casual; variabilidade pressórica; classe dos anti-hipertensivos e dos BRAs. Foram utilizados testes de t pareado, qui-quadrado e Fisher, além de sobreposição dos intervalos de confiança de 95% com nível de significância de 5% (p < 0,05). RESULTADOS: Foram selecionados 17.013 pacientes; destes, 12.813 preencheram os critérios, dos quais 62,1% eram do sexo feminino. O número médio de medidas válidas foi de 23,3 (±2,0), com médias para a PAS de 126,8±15,8 mmHg e 133,5±20,1 mmHg (p < 0,001) e para a PAD de 79,1±9,7 mmHg e 83,6±11,9 mmHg (p < 0,001) pela MRPA e medida casual, respectivamente. Losartana foi o BRA mais utilizado e o que apresentou comportamentos mais elevados da pressão arterial. As combinações de BRA com diuréticos ou com antagonistas de canal de cálcio tiveram menores valores de pressão arterial. CONCLUSÕES: Losartana foi utilizada em mais da metade dos pacientes, apesar de ser a menos eficiente na redução e no controle da pressão arterial.

Bloqueadores do Receptor de Angiotensina Avaliados por Medida de Consultório e Residencial da Pressão Arterial. Estudo TeleMRPA / Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Evaluated by Office and Home Blood Pressure Measurements. TeleHBPM Study

Resumo Fundamento O tratamento adequado e a obtenção das metas na hipertensão arterial são importantes na redução dos desfechos cardiovasculares. Objetivos Descrever os bloqueadores do receptor de angiotensina (BRA) em monoterapia ou combinação dupla e a taxa de controle da hipertensão arterial. Métodos Estudo transversal que avaliou pacientes em uso de BRA entre 2017 e 2020. Foram excluídos aqueles em uso de três ou mais anti-hipertensivos. As variáveis analisadas foram: sexo, idade, índice de massa corporal, medidas válidas da medida residencial da pressão arterial (MRPA); pressão arterial sistólica (PAS) e diastólica (PAD) obtidas pela MRPA e de forma casual; variabilidade pressórica; classe dos anti-hipertensivos e dos BRAs. Foram utilizados testes de t pareado, qui-quadrado e Fisher, além de sobreposição dos intervalos de confiança de 95% com nível de significância de 5% (p < 0,05). Resultados Foram selecionados 17.013 pacientes; destes, 12.813 preencheram os critérios, dos quais 62,1% eram do sexo feminino. O número médio de medidas válidas foi de 23,3 (±2,0), com médias para a PAS de 126,8±15,8 mmHg e 133,5±20,1 mmHg (p < 0,001) e para a PAD de 79,1±9,7 mmHg e 83,6±11,9 mmHg (p < 0,001) pela MRPA e medida casual, respectivamente. Losartana foi o BRA mais utilizado e o que apresentou comportamentos mais elevados da pressão arterial. As combinações de BRA com diuréticos ou com antagonistas de canal de cálcio tiveram menores valores de pressão arterial. Conclusões Losartana foi utilizada em mais da metade dos pacientes, apesar de ser a menos eficiente na redução e no controle da pressão arterial.

Abstract Background Adequate treatment of arterial hypertension and achieving arterial hypertension goals in are important in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. Objectives To describe angiotensin receptor blockers in monotherapy or double combination therapy and the rate of arterial hypertension control. Methods This cross-sectional study evaluated patients who were using angiotensin receptor blockers between 2017 and 2020. Those using three or more antihypertensive drugs were excluded. The analyzed variables included sex, age, body mass index, valid home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) measurements, casual and HBPM systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements, blood pressure variability, and antihypertensive and angiotensin receptor blocker class. Paired t, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests were used, as well as overlapping 95% confidence intervals and a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). Results Of 17,013 patients, 12,813 met the inclusion criteria, 62.1% of whom were female. The mean number of valid measurements was 23.3 (SD, 2.0). The mean HBPM and casual measurements for systolic blood pressure were 126.8 (SD, 15.8) mmHg and 133.5 (SD, 20.1) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively, while those for diastolic blood pressure were 79.1 (SD, 9.7 mmHg) and 83.6 (SD, 11.9) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively. Losartan was the most common angiotensin receptor blocker and resulted in the highest blood pressure values. Combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers with diuretics or calcium channel antagonists resulted in lower blood pressure values. Conclusions More than half of the patients used losartan, although it was the least efficient drug for reducing and controlling blood pressure.

Specific test panels for patients with heart failure: implementation and use in the Spanish National Health System.

Objectives: The use of specific test panels (STP) for heart failure (HF) could help improve the management of this condition. The purpose of this study is to gain an insight into the level of implementation of STPs in the management of HF in Spain and gather the opinions of experts, with a special focus on parameters related to iron metabolism. Methods: The opinions of experts in HF were gathered in three stages STAGE 1 as follows: level of implementation of STPs (n=40). STAGE 2: advantages and disadvantages of STPs (n=12). STAGE 3: level of agreement with the composition of three specific STPs for HF: initial evaluation panel, monitoring panel, and de novo panel (n=16). Results: In total, 62.5% of hospitals used STPs for the clinical management of HF, with no association found between the use of STPs and the level of health care (p=0.132) and location of the center (p=0.486) or the availability of a Heart Failure Unit in the center (p=0.737). According to experts, the use of STPs in clinical practice has more advantages than disadvantages (8 vs. 3), with a notable positive impact on diagnostics. Experts gave three motivations and found three limitations to the implementation of STPs. The composition of the three specific STPs for HF was viewed positively by experts. Conclusions: Although the experts interviewed advocate the use of diagnostic and monitoring STPs for HF, efforts are still necessary to achieve the standardization and homogenization of test panels for HF in Spanish hospitals.

The Global Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) Registry. Rationale, design and objectives.

Hypertension is a major risk factor for the development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) and blood pressure (BP) in itself is an important marker of prognosis. The association of BP levels, and hemodynamic parameters, measured by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), with outcomes, in patients with HFPEF is largely unknown. Patients with HFPEF have a substantial burden of co-morbidities and frailty. In addition there are marked geographic differences in HFPEF around the world. How these difference influence the association between BP and outcomes in HFPEF are unknown. The Global Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) Registry aims to assess the relevance of BP parameters, measured by ABPM, on the outcome of HFPEF patients worldwide. Additionally, the influence of other relevant factors such as frailty and co-morbidities will be assessed. Stable HFPEF patients with a previous hospitalization, will be included. Patients should be clinically and hemodynamically stable for at least 4 weeks before study inclusion. Specific data related to HF, biochemical markers, ECG and echocardiography will be collected. An ABPM and geriatric and frailty evaluation will be performed and the association with morbidity and mortality assessed. Follow up will be at least one year.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in heart failure and serum sodium levels.

AIMS: To determine whether there are differences in blood pressure profile on dynamic assessment by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) according to serum sodium levels in stable heart failure patients. METHODS: Data were collected from the Spanish National Registry on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Heart Failure (DICUMAP). Patients underwent ABPM by the oscillometric principle using a Spacelabs 90121 monitor. The sample was divided into three groups according to sodium levels and their clinical and laboratory data and echocardiographic findings were analyzed. Robust statistical methods were used to compare the groups in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients (44.57% male) were analyzed. We found a predominance of anomalous circadian blood pressure profiles in all three groups, with a significantly higher percentage of risers in the lowest serum sodium group (p=0.05). In addition, in this group there were significant differences in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (SBP) (24-h SBP, p=0.05) and in mean daytime SBP (dSBP, p=0.008), with significant differences in nocturnal fall in SBP (p=0.05) and in diastolic blood pressure (p=0.005). In multivariate analysis a significant relationship was found between sodium levels and 24-h SBP (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, p=0.01) and dSBP (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, p=0.004). CONCLUSION: A relationship was found between lower sodium levels and lower systolic blood pressure, especially during waking hours, with a lower decline between daytime and night-time blood pressure.

[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.

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.

[Vasoactive and inotropic drugs in acute heart failure]. / Fármacos vasoactivos e inotrópicos en la insuficiencia cardíaca aguda.

Vasoactive and inotropic drugs provide effective symptomatic and hemodynamic relief in the short term but can increase mortality in the long-term. Consequently, their use should be restricted to the indications described in clinical practice guidelines. The present article reviews the main drugs and the available evidence on their use.

[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.

Implementation of Spanish adaptation of the European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The successful implementation of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines relies heavily on primary care physicians (PCPs) providing risk factor evaluation, intervention and patient education. The aim of this study was to ascertain the degree of awareness and implementation of the Spanish adaptation of the European guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice (CEIPC guidelines) among PCPs. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of PCPs was conducted in Spain between January and June 2011. A random sample of 1,390 PCPs was obtained and stratified by region. Data were collected by means of a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: More than half (58%) the physicians were aware of and knew the recommendations, and 62% of those claimed to use them in clinical practice, with general physicians (without any specialist accreditation) being less likely to so than family doctors. Most PCPs (60%) did not assess cardiovascular risk, with the limited time available in the surgery being cited as the greatest barrier by 81%. The main reason to be sceptical about recommendations, reported by 71% of physicians, was that there are too many guidelines. Almost half the doctors cited the lack of training and skills as the greatest barrier to the implementation of lifestyle and behavioural change recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Most PCPs were aware of the Spanish adaptation of the European guidelines on CVD prevention (CEIPC guidelines) and knew their content. However, only one third of PCPs used the guidelines in clinical practice and less than half CVD risk assessment tools.

[Impact of anti-diabetic therapy based on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on the cardiovascular risk of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus]. / Impacto del tratamiento antidiabético con fármacos agonistas del receptor de péptido de tipo 1 similar al glucagón en el riesgo cardiovascular de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2.

Anti-diabetic drugs have, in addition to their well-known glucose lowering-effect, different effects in the rest of cardiovascular factors that are associated with diabetes mellitus. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have recently been incorporated to the therapeutic arsenal of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The objective of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the effect of the GLP-1 receptor agonists on different cardiovascular risk factors, mediated by the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the control of hyperglycaemia and the GLP-1 receptor agonists effect on other cardiovascular risk factors (weight control, blood pressure control, lipid profile and all other cardiovascular risk biomarkers). In addition, we present the emerging evidence with regards to the impact that GLP-1 receptor agonists therapy could have in the reduction of cardiovascular events and the currently ongoing studies addressing this issue.